Don’t use the P** word! – 5 lessons learned.

October 9, 2024 in Artificial Intelligence, Change, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Education, Observations, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Recently, I attended several events related to the various aspects of product lifecycle management; most of them were tool-centric, explaining the benefits and values of their products.

In parallel, I am working with several companies, assisting their PLM teams to make their plans understood by the upper management, which has always been my mission in the past.

However, nowadays, people working in the business are feeling more and more challenged and pained by not acting adequately to the upcoming business demands.

The image below has been shown so many times, and every time, the context becomes more relevant.

Too often, an evolutionary mindset with small steps is considered instead of looking toward the future and reasoning back for what needs to be done.

Let me share some experiences and potential solutions.

Don’t use the P** word!

The title of this post is one of the most essential points to consider. By using the term PLM, the discussion is most of the time framed in a debate related to the purchase or installation of a system, the PLM system, which is an engineering tool.

PLM vendors, like Dassault Systèmes and Siemens, have recognized this, and the word PLM is no longer on their home pages.
They are now delivering experiences or digital industries software.

Other companies, such as PTC and Aras, broadened the discussion by naming other domains, such as manufacturing and services, all connected through a digital thread.

The challenge for all these software vendors is why a company would consider buying their products. A growing issue for them is also why would they like to change their existing PLM system to another one, as there is so much legacy.

For all of these vendors, success can come if champions inside the targeted company understand the technology and can translate its needs into their daily work.

Here, we meet the internal PLM team, which is motivated by the technology and wants to spread the message to the organization. Often, with no or limited success, as the value and the context they are considering are not understood or felt as urgent.

 

Lesson 1:
Don’t use the word PLM in your management messaging.

In some of the current projects I have seen, people talk about the digital highway or a digital infrastructure to take this hurdle. For example, listen to the SharePLM podcast with Roger Kabo from Marel, who talks about their vision and digital product highway.

The Marel digital product highway

As soon as you use the word PLM, most people think about a (costly) system, as this is how PLM is framed. Engineering, like IT, is often considered a cost center, as money is made by manufacturing and selling products.

According to experts (CIMdata/Gartner), Product Lifecycle Management is considered a strategic approach. However, the majority of people talk about a PLM system. Of course, vendors and system integrators will speak about their PLM offerings.

To avoid this framing, first of all, try to explain what you want to establish for the business. The terms Digital Product Highway or Digital Infrastructure, for example, avoid thinking in systems.

Lesson 2:
Don’t tell your management why they need to reward your project – they should tell you what they need.

This might seem like a bit of strange advice; however, you have to realize that most of the time, people do not talk about the details at the management level. At the management level, there are strategies and business objectives, and you will only get attention when your proposal addresses the business needs. At the management level, there should be an understanding of the business need and its potential value for the organization. Next, analyzing the business changes and required tools will lead to an understanding of what value the PLM team can bring.

Yousef Hooshmand’s  5 + 1 approach illustrates this perfectly. It is crucial to note that long-term executive commitment is needed to have a serious project, and therefore, the connection to their business objective is vital.

Therefore, if you can connect your project to the business objectives of someone in management, you have the opportunity to get executive sponsorship. A crucial advice you hear all the time when discussing successful PLM projects.

 

Lesson 3:
Alignment must come from within the organization.

Last week, at the 20th anniversary of the Dutch PLM platform, Yousef Hooshmand gave the keynote speech starting with the images below:

On the left side, we see the medieval Catholic church sincerely selling salvation through indulgences, where the legend says Luther bought the hell, demonstrating salvation comes from inside, not from external activities – read the legend here.

On the right side, we see the Digital Transformation expert sincerely selling digital transformation to companies. According to LinkedIn, there are about 1.170.000 people with the term Digital Transformation in their profile.

As Yousef mentioned, the intentions of these people can be sincere, but also, here, the transformation must come from inside (the company).

When I work with companies, I use the Benefits Dependency Network methodology to create a storyboard for the company. The BDN network then serves as a base for creating storylines that help people in the organization have a connected view starting from their perspective.

Companies might hire strategic consultancy firms to help them formulate their long-term strategy. This can be very helpful where, in the best case, the consultancy firm educates the company, but the company should decide on the direction.

In an older blog post, I wrote about this methodology, presented by Johannes Storvik at the Technia Innovation forum, and how it defines a value-driven implementation.

Dassault Systèmes and its partners use this methodology in their Value Engagement process, which is tuned to their solution portfolio.

You can also watch the webinar Federated PLM Webinar 5 – The Business Case for the Federated PLM, in which I explained the methodology used.

 

Lesson 4:
PLM is a business need not an IT service

This lesson is essential for those who believe that PLM is still a system or an IT service. In some companies, I have seen that the (understaffed) PLM team is part of a larger IT organization. In this type of organization, the PLM team, as part of IT, is purely considered a cost center that is available to support the demand from the business.

The business usually focuses on incremental and economic profitability, less on transformational ways of working.

In this context, it is relevant to read Chris Seiler’s post: How to escape the vicious circle in times of transformation? Where he reflects on his 2002 MBA study, which is still valid for many big corporate organizations.

It is a long read, but it is gratifying if you are interested. It shows that PLM concepts should be discussed and executed at the business level. Of course, I read the article with my PLM-twisted brain.

A Pessimistic Scenario of External Driving Forces and Their Internal Interrelations (Christ Seiler)

The image above from Chris’s post could be a starting point for a Benefits-Dependent Network diagram, expanded with Objectives, Business Changes and Benefits to fight this vicious downturn.

As PLM is no longer a system but a business strategy, the PLM team should be integrated into the business potential overlooked by the CIO or CDO, as a CEO is usually not able to give this long-term executive commitment.

Lesson 5:
Educate yourselves and your management

The last lesson is crucial, as due to improving technologies like AI and, earlier, the concepts of the digital twin, traditional ways of coordinated working will become inefficient and redundant.

However, before jumping on these new technologies, everyone, at every level in the organization, should be aware of:

WHY will this be relevant for our business? Is it to cut costs – being more efficient as fewer humans are in the process? Is it to be able to comply with new upcoming (sustainability) regulations? Is it because the aging workforce leaves a knowledge gap?

WHAT will our business need in the next 5 to 10 years? Are there new ways of working that we want to introduce, but we lack the technology and the tools? Do we have skills in-house? Remember, digital transformation must come from the inside.

HOW are we going to adapt our business? Can we do it in a learning mode, as the end target is not clear yet—the MVP (Minimum Viable Product) approach? Are we moving from selling products to providing a Product Service System?

My lesson: Get inspired by the software vendors who will show you what might be possible. Get educated on the topic and understand what it would mean for your organization. Start from the people and the business needs before jumping on the tools.

 

In the upcoming PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe conference on 23-24 October, we will be meeting again with a group of P** experts to discuss our experiences and progress in this domain. I will give a lecture here about what it takes to move to a sustainable economy based on a Product-as-a-service concept.

If you want to learn more – join us – here is the link to the agenda.

 

Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed reading a blog post not generated by ChatGPT, although I am using bullet points. With the overflow of information, it remains crucial to keep a holistic overview. I hope that with this post, I have helped the P** teams in their mission, and I look forward to learning from your experiences in this domain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addressing the global plastics problem in electrotechnical product design

October 4, 2024 in Circulair Economy, Green Development, Life Cycle Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, Material Compliance, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: | Leave a comment

This is a guest post from one of our active members of the PLM Green Global Alliance, Roger L. Franz.

Roger is supporting industry inquiries on regulated substances, sustainable product design and life cycle management, including carbon footprint.

He is a recognized authority on supply chain reporting for compliance with worldwide regulations. Roger brings decades of experience with engineering tools and enterprise IT systems.

 

Introduction. 

More than just unsightly “plastic pollution,” the volume of consumer plastics and lack of closed-loop recovery have created a significant micro- and nano-plastics problem. These invisible plastic particles are found around the world, including in animal and human tissues.

For several reasons, including a much smaller volume of plastic used in electrotechnical products compared to consumer plastics and the generally longer life of hardware compared to the rapid turnover of consumer goods and packaging, the microplastics problem is not typically tagged as a major electronics problem- or at least not yet. Now is the time to be proactive.

The United Nations Environment Programme has posted summaries of recent discussions on using life cycle assessment (LCA) to address the global problem of plastic pollution.  These Life Cycle Initiative areas relate to plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, and plastic product design.  The documents are about possible approaches to managing plastics with recommendations but are not detailed prescriptions, methods, or regulations.

While the studies did not specifically mention electrotechnical products, this industry will need to accelerate focus on engineering design tools and engineering plastics choices to avoid significantly adding on to the consumer plastic product problems.

Within the UNEP product design discussion, the section on “General considerations on possible approaches to product design, focusing on recyclability and reusability” included the following important point, which bears repeating:  Product design approaches should include eco-design and circularity principles.

 

Product design approaches should include
eco-design and circularity principles.

But what does this mean? In the following discussion, we hope to break these approaches down into more tangible design choices. Even within the electrotechnical product category, there are many product variations, so no claim is made here to cover all of them.

Options for lower carbon footprint plastics already exist to some extent.  Except for packaging, electronic components and products are typically made with engineering resins rather than the common consumer plastic “recycling arrow” types.   Alternative types of lower carbon footprint engineering resins may be available to use rather than others with higher carbon footprints.

Many plastic manufacturers are currently conducting LCA to quantify the cradle-to-gate carbon footprint of their materials. Different polymer types have inherent differences in carbon footprint due to their different monomeric starting materials and manufacturing processes.

For many plastics, these flows are detailed by Plastics Europe.  Polycarbonate, ABS, and several Polyamides, for example, are included. What is missing in these publicly available sources, as well as LCA inventory databases themselves, are many other engineering plastics; for example, while consumer PET is widely modeled, PBT (Polybutylene terephthalate) is not. These are just some of the data gaps that need to be resolved.

 

More sustainable feedstock is a good option since a given end polymer may be made from different monomeric chemicals, so the more sustainable plastic performs exactly like its classic version because it is the same.  One of the growing alternatives includes feedstocks based on renewable, bio-based sources.

These need some evaluation, again using LCA, to ensure they are free of downsides like increased water use, eutrophication, and chemical pollution due to the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and so on. Marketing claims of being a “green material” will need backup data! For guidelines on acceptable environmental benefits claims, refer to the US FTC Green Guides.

Reducing the amount of plastic by design is not only a good practice for sustainability, it also saves money.  Some designs using parts with enough material to be modeled using generative design may be able to reduce the amount of material while reducing material usage and weight.  Reducing factory scrap from injection molding processes leaving sprues in runners and use of captive regrind are other good options.

Choosing manufacturers using renewable fuels– and even benefits like reduction of water use during processing- is another area of choice for sustainability.  Local sourcing is also a way to reduce the overall carbon footprint of a material by reducing the contribution of transportation.

Identify large plastic parts.  Historical guidelines on eco-design have actually been around for years.

One good example is the ECMA 341 Standard, “Environmental Design Considerations for ICT & CE Products (4th Edition / December 2010), which says, “All plastic parts weighing 25 g or more and with a flat area of 200 mm2 or more are marked with the type of polymer, copolymer, polymer blends or alloys in conformance with ISO 11469.”  This practice enables the identification of plastic types of large parts, while in practice, the ability to sort becomes less useful when a variety of goods are mixed in a production recycling facility.  Success here depends either on manual sorting or more sophisticated methods like infrared spectroscopy to be effective. Some equipment recyclers have such capability.

Keep it clean.   More useful guidance from ECMA 341 is to avoid the following: non-recyclable composites; coatings and surface finishes on plastic parts; adhesive-backed stickers or foams on plastic parts; if stickers are required, they should be separable; and metal inserts in plastic parts unless easily removable with common tools.  These are common sense from a clean recycling stream perspective and should not be difficult to implement.

Closing the end-of-life loop.   Recycling is imperfect, and as far as this author has seen, is rarely in place for engineering plastics.

Processes under development to decompose plastics back to new monomer feedstocks, called chemical recycling or tertiary recycling. This approach is achieving some success with a limited number of materials, mostly for high-volume consumer plastics rather than engineering types.

LCA is needed to validate that achieving plastic circularity this way with the necessary processing energy and chemicals will have a net environmental benefit.  The obvious problem with all approaches is that plastics were never designed for the environment in the first place.

Selecting More Sustainable Additives is another area where product engineers have some choices.  There are thousands of possible additives used in plastic, usually specified for a given grade and end application.  These include flame retardants, processing aids, fillers, colorants, ultraviolet stabilizers, plasticizers for flexibility, and so on and on.   While these choices are primarily the responsibility of the resin manufacturer, pressure from regulators and industry demand can influence the use of more sustainable additives.

Whenever possible, new products should avoid regulated substances by design, which may include Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) as defined by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and, more recently, polyfluorinated substances called PFAS.  This is easier said than done but definitely belongs on the checklist of ecodesign considerations.

Besides plastics?  While the present discussion is about plastics, choices of using altogether different materials may be possible in some cases.

High-volume hardware is probably unable to use alternative materials like wood, glass, bamboo, etc.   Historically, though, until the rise of both solid-state and plastic technology in the 1950s, radios and televisions featured wooden cases and consoles.  Miniaturization in the solid-state era brought in mostly plastic housings.  One recent example that the author worked on was an audio teleconferencing system that featured either oak or walnut to blend with the executive conference room.

While the intent was not specifically to avoid using plastic, it is an interesting example to think outside the plastic box. Wood avoids many of the issues with plastics, but of course, the plastics in the circuitry content remain to be addressed.

Other large household electrical/electronic goods are likely to use recyclable steel and/or stainless steel cabinets.  And if you consider an automobile to be an electronic product, these metals come into play in high volume in automobile shredder residue. Using metal rather than plastic housings may be possible for some products; for example, aluminum may be used for personal communications and IT devices, bringing a tradeoff between initial cost and the potential advantage of aluminum being more highly recyclable for use in new equipment than any plastic.

Only LCA can quantify the tradeoffs. We should also mention toys, which increasingly incorporate some electronics and use colored plastics extensively.

New material technology.  One of the many emerging material technologies is Engineered Wood.  The cited research hardly suggests that a wood-based material could be a drop-in, for example, injection molded thermoplastics, but the possibility is most intriguing.  However, just having a material of natural origins is not automatically a panacea for replacing plastics. Quite the contrary, significant cautions remain; for example,

“Chemical and thermal modifications are usually applied to adapt the wood structure and impart necessary functionalities. Most of these treatments use substantial amounts of chemicals, energy, and water. They also innocently incorporate unwanted chemically bonded structures into the wood and generate a large amount of waste products which are harmful to the environment. This brings a dilemma where an entirely sustainable and green material is converted to a non-environmentally friendly material”

(El Akban et. al, Green Chemistry, 2021).

For now, the point is that reconsidering classical synthetic polymers in the light of more natural and renewable materials may have an interesting future.

Modularity.  The ease of disassembly into “modules” is often listed as an eco-design practice that improves circularity, but the present author is skeptical about providing practical details.  More specific guidance requires each manufacturer to know how its products can be disassembled at their end of life and where such disassembly would lead in terms of reuse, remanufacturing, or material recovery.   In the context of plastics, a large plastic housing that can be easily disassembled into a single clean material is more likely to be sent to a recycler rather than reused as a “module” in other products.

It is unfortunate that software tools to make early design choices for disassembly began to be developed 25 years ago but have gone by the wayside since.   The author had personal experience with such a “Green Design Advisor” tool that modeled a product assembly from its raw materials and showed how disassembly into environmentally and economically viable recovery fractions could be optimized.

One example that is probably still true today is that an epoxy circuit board and its components would be a “module” to be submitted to size a reduction, separation, and metal recovery process.  Such a tool could also model the choice of a plastic housing vs. a metal alloy and the impacts of circular recovery of the material choices. Disassembly modeling tools for product designers is an area that needs significant development now, while software using artificial intelligence (AI) claims to be the answer. We shall see.

In conclusion, it must be recognized that most plastics were never designed for the environment in the first place. While there is currently no 100% perfect alternative, engineers do have options to improve the life cycle sustainability of tomorrow’s products.

  • Select lower PCF plastics and avoid regulated additives.
  • Reduce the amount of plastics if possible and keep larger parts free of different materials.
  • Consider materials other than plastics.
  • Be aware of new developments in both sources of plastic and end-of-life options.

 

Roger L. Franz / RogerLFranz@gmail.com   – Sept. 2024

 

 

 

 

PLM can change; waiting for the business

September 8, 2024 in Change, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Education, PLM | Tags: , , , , | 1 comment

I have not been writing much new content recently as I feel that from the conceptual side, so much has already been said and written. A way to confuse people is to overload them with information. We see it in our daily lives and our PLM domain.

With so much information, people become apathetic, and you will hear only the loudest and most straightforward solutions.

One desire may be that we should go back to the past when everything was easier to understand—are you sure about that?

This attitude has often led to companies doing nothing, not taking any risks, and just providing plasters and stitches when things become painful. Strategic decision-making is the key to avoiding this trap.

I just read this article in the Guardian: The German problem? It is an analog country in a digital world.

The article also describes the lessons learned from the UK (quote):

Britain was the dominant economic power in the 19th century on the back of the technologies of the first Industrial Revolution and found it hard to break with the old ways even when it should have been obvious that its coal and textile industries were in long-term decline.

As a result, Britain lagged behind its competitors. One of these was Germany, which excelled in advanced manufacturing and precision engineering.

Many technology concepts originated from Germany in the past and even now we are talking about Industrie 4.0 and Catena-X as advanced concepts. But are they implemented? Did companies change their culture and ways of working required for a connected and digital enterprise?

 

Technology is not the issue.

The current PLM concepts, which discuss a federated PLM infrastructure based on connected data, have become increasingly stable.

Perhaps people are using different terminologies and focusing on specific aspects of a business; however, all these (technical) discussions talk about similar business concepts:

Several more people are sharing their knowledge and experience in the domain of modern PLM concepts, and you will see that technology is not the issue. The hype of AI may become an issue.

 

From IT focus to Business focus

One issue I observed at several companies I worked with is that the PLM’s responsibility is inside the IT organization – click on the image to get the mindset.

This situation is a historical one, as in the traditional PLM mode, the focus was on the on-premise installation and maintenance of a PLM system. Topics like stability, performance and security are typical IT topics.

IT departments have often been considered cost centers, and their primary purpose is to keep costs low.

Does the slogan ONE CAD, ONE PLM or ONE ERP resonate in your company?

It is all a result of trying to standardize a company’s tools. It is not deficient in a coordinated enterprise where information is exchanged in documents and BOMs. Although I wrote in 2011 about the tension between business and IT in my post “PLM and IT—love/hate relation?”

Now, modern PLM is about a connected infrastructure where accurate data is the #1 priority.

Most of the new processes will be implemented in value streams, where the data is created in SaaS solutions running in the cloud. In such environments, business should be leading, and of course, where needed, IT should support the overall architecture concepts.

In this context, I recommend an older but still valid article: The Changing Role of IT: From Gatekeeper to Business Partner.

This changing role for IT should come in parallel to the changing role for the PLM team. The PLM team needs to first focus on enabling the new types of businesses and value streams, not on features and capabilities. This change in focus means they become part of the value creation teams instead of a cost center.

From successful PLM implementations, I have seen that the team directly reported to the CEO, CTO or CIO, no longer as a subdivision of the larger IT organization.

Where is your PLM team?
Is it a cost center or a value-creation engine?

 

The role of business leaders

As mentioned before, with a PLM team reporting to the business, communication should transition from discussing technology and capabilities to focusing on business value.

I recently wrote about this need for a change in attitude in my post:  PLM business first. The recommended flow is nicely represented in the section “Starting from the business.”

Image: Yousef Hooshmand.

Business leaders must realize that a change is needed due to upcoming regulations, like ESG and CSRD reporting, the Digital Product Passport and the need for product Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), which is more than just a change of tools.

I have often referred to the diagram created by Mark Halpern from Gartner in 2015. Below you can see and adjusted  diagram for 2024 including AI.

It looks like we are moving from Coordinated technology toward Connected technology. This seems easy to frame. However, my experience discussing this step in the past four to five years has led to the following four lessons learned:

  1. It is not a transition from Coordinated to Connected.
    At this step, a company has to start in a hybrid mode – there will always remain Coordinated ways of working connected to Connected ways of working. This is the current discussion related to Federated PLM and the introduction of the terms System of Record (traditional systems / supporting linear ways of working) and Systems of Engagement (connected environments targeting real-time collaboration in their value chain)
  2. It is not a matter of buying or deploying new tools.
    Digital transformation is a change in ways of working and the skills needed. In traditional environments, where people work in a coordinated approach, they can work in their discipline and deliver when needed. People working in the connected approach have different skills. They work data-driven in a multidisciplinary mode. These ways of working require modern skills. Companies that are investing in new tools often hesitate to change their organization, which leads to frustration and failure.
  3. There is no blueprint for your company.
    Digital transformation in a company is a learning process, and therefore, the idea of a digital transformation project is a utopia. It will be a learning journey where you have to start small with a Minimum Viable Product approach. Proof of Concepts is a waste of time as they do not commit to implementing the solution.
  4. The time is now!
    The role of management is to secure the company’s future, which means having a long-term vision. And as it is a learning journey, the time is now to invest and learn using connected technology to be connected to coordinated technology. Can you avoid waiting to learn?

I have shared the image below several times as it is one of the best blueprints for describing the needed business transition. It originates from a McKinsey article that does not explicitly refer to PLM, again demonstrating it is first about a business strategy.

It is up to the management to master this process and apply it to their business in a timely manner.  If not, the company and all its employees will be at risk for a sustainable business. Here, the word Sustainable has a double meaning – for the company and its employees/shareholders and the outside world – the planet.

Want to learn and discuss more?

Currently, I am preparing my session for the upcoming PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe conference on 23 and 24 October in Gothenburg. As I mentioned in previous years, this conference is my preferred event of the year as it is vendor-independent, and all participants are active in the various phases of a PLM implementation.

If you want to attend the conference, look here for the agenda and registration. I look forward to discussing modern PLM and its relation to sustainability with you. More in my upcoming posts till the conference.

Conclusion

Digital transformation in the PLM domain is going slow in many companies as it is complex. It is not an easy next step, as companies have to deal with different types of processes and skills. Therefore, a different organizational structure is needed. A decision to start with a different business structure always begins at the management level, driven by business goals. The technology is there—waiting for the business to lead.

 

PLM and Sustainability: talking with Configit

August 5, 2024 in Configuration Lifecycle Management, Life Cycle Analysis, Modularity, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

We, the PLM Green Global Alliance, started our first interviews with PLM-related software vendors two years ago, in 2022, with the initial PLM vendors followed by additional software vendors and implementers who focus on Sustainability.

The list is getting longer, and for some of them, we are now in the second round, learning what has happened in the field with their customers.

You can always read about these interviews on our PLM Green Global Alliance website or subscribe to the YouTube channel: @PLM_Global_Green_Alliance   where we share the interview recordings.

This time, we spoke with Henrik Hulgaard from Configit. I spoke earlier with Henrik about Configuration Lifecycle Management – you can read our discussion here. Now, we talked about the relationship between Configit and Sustainability.

Configit

Configit is not a typical PLM or reporting software provider. They flourish on top of an existing (data-driven) infrastructure in order to provide consistency between all aspects of product design, manufacturing and usage.

In their words:

“We build configuration solutions for manufacturing companies to master the challenges of getting configurable products and services to market faster and selling, manufacturing, and servicing them more effectively.”

We discussed how this is beneficial in the context of Sustainability with Henrik Hulgaard, their VP of Product Management.

Enjoy the 35-minute discussion below:

The slides shown during the interview, combined with additional company information, can be found HERE.

What we have learned

  • Using Configit connected to your configurable products allows you to select the best performance for Sustainability if this is your motivation. It will enable companies to design and deliver configurable products where, in the end, in practice, the customer decides on the optimum configuration, fitting their purpose and ambition.
  • Configurations and Modularity, which are building blocks of the circular economy, go hand in hand and cannot be considered standalone options.
  • Even AI has entered the domain of configuration lifecycle management – we are in the early stages of learning more.

Want to learn more?

 

Conclusion

As a company, there are many ways to provide more sustainable products to your customers, such as by design and by customer choice. With Configit, companies can provide the most sustainable options for their manufacturing process or later support their customers to select the most sustainable options.

 

 

PLM – business first

July 17, 2024 in Change, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Education, PLM | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

In recent years, I have assisted several companies in defining their PLM strategy. The good news is that these companies are talking first about a PLM strategy and not immediately about a PLM system selection.

In addition, a PLM strategy should not be defined in isolation but rather as an integral part of a broader business strategy. One of my favorite one-liners is:

“Are we implementing the past, or are we implementing the future?”

When companies implement the past, it feels like they modernize their current ways of working with new technology and capabilities. The new environment is more straightforward to explain to everybody in the company, and even the topic of migration can be addressed as migration might be manageable.

Note: Migration should always be considered – the elephant in the room.

I wrote about Migration Migraine in two posts earlier this year, one describing the basics and the second describing the lessons learned and the path to a digital future.

Implementing PLM now should be part of your business strategy.

Threats coming from different types of competitors, necessary sustainability-related regulations (e.g., CSRD reporting), and, on the positive side, new opportunities are coming (e.g., Product as a Service), all requiring your company to be adaptable to changes in products, services and even business models.

Suppose your company wants to benefit from concepts like the Digital Twin and AI. In that case, it needs a data-driven infrastructure—

Digital Twins do not run on documents, and algorithms need reliable data.

Digital Transformation in the PLM domain means combining Coordinated and Connected working methods. In other words, you need to build an infrastructure based on Systems of Record and Systems of Engagement. Followers of my blog should be familiar with these terms.

 

PLM is not an R&D and Engineering solution
(any more)

One of the biggest misconceptions still made is that PLM is implemented by a single system mainly used by R&D and Engineering. These disciplines are considered the traditional creators of product data—a logical assumption at the time when PLM was more of a silo, Managing Projects with CAD and BOM data.

However, this misconception frames many discussions towards discussions about what is the best system for my discipline, more or less strengthening the silos in an organization. Being able to break the silos is one of the technical capabilities digitization brings.

Business and IT architecture are closely related. Perhaps you have heard about Conway’s law (from 1967):

 

“Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization’s communication structure.”

This means that if you plan to implement or improve a PLM infrastructure without considering an organizational change, you will be locked again into your traditional ways of working – the coordinated approach, which is reflected on the left side of the image (click on it to enlarge it).

An organizational change impacts middle management, a significant category we often neglect. There is the C-level vision and the voice of the end user. Middle management has to connect them and still feel their jobs are not at risk. I wrote about it some years ago: The Middle Management Dilemma.

 

How do we adapt the business?

The biggest challenge of a business transformation is that it starts with the WHY and should be understood and supported at all organizational levels.

If there is no clear vision for change but a continuous push to be more efficient, your company is at risk!

For over 60 years, companies have been used to working in a coordinated approach, from paper-based to electronic deliverables.

  • How do you motivate your organization to move in a relatively unknown direction?
  • Who in your organization are the people who can build a digital vision and Strategy?

These two questions are fundamental, and you cannot outsource ownership of it.

People in the transformation teams need to be digitally skilled (not geeks), communicators (storytellers), and, very importantly, connected to the business.

Often, the candidates come from the existing business units where they have proven skills. The challenging part is educating them and making them available for this mission.

Digital transformation is not a side job.

Education can come from the outside world. Making people available to work on the new digital infrastructure is a management decision and their sense of priority.

 

How to get external support?

If you are connected to the PLM world like me, a lot of information is available. In academic papers, projects and in particular on LinkedIn currently, there is an overflow of architectural debates:

Recently, I participated in the discussions below:

 

The challenge with these articles is that they are for insiders and far from shareable with business people. There is always a discussion, as we are all learning to match theory with reality. For example,Prof. Dr. Jörg W. Fischer introduced the Information Architecture as a missing link. You can read his recent post here and the quote below to get interested:

All of these methods focus either on Data Architecture or Business Architecture. And the blind spot? I am convinced that an essential layer between the two is missing. We at STZ-RIM Reshape Information Management call this Information Architecture.

Still, we remain in the expert domain, which a limited group of people understands. We need to connect to the business. Where can we find more education from the business side?

The reaction below in one of the discussions says it all, in my opinion:

 

Starting from the business

What I have learned from my discussions with the management is:

  • Don’t mention PLM – you will be cornered in the R&D / Engineering frame.
  • Don’t explain their problems, and tell them that you have the solution (on PowerPoint)
  • Create curiosity about topics that are relevant to the business – What if …?
  • Use storytelling to imagine a future state – Spare the details.
  • Build trust and confidence that you are not selling a product. Let the company discover their needs as it is their transformation.

The diagram below, presented by Yousef Hooshmand during the PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe 2023 conference in Paris, describes it all:

It will be a continuous iterative process where, starting from business values and objectives, an implementation step is analyzed, how it fits in the PLM landscape and ultimately, how measures and actions guide the implementation of the tools and technology.

It is important to stress that this is not the guidance for a system implementation; it is the guidance for a digital transformation journey. Therefore, the message in the middle of the image is: Long-term Executive Commitment!

 

In addition, I want to point to articles and blogs written by Jan Bosch. Jan is an Executive, professor and consultant with more than 20 years of experience in large-scale software R&D management and business.

Although our worlds do not intersect yet, the management of mechanical products and software is different; his principles fit better and better with a modern data-driven organization. Often, I feel we are fighting the same battle to coach companies in their business transformation.

In the context of this article, I recommend reviewing the BAPO model coming from the software world.

BAPO stands for Business, Architecture, Process and Organization. As the diagram below indicates, you should start from the business, defining the needs for the architecture and then the preferred ways of working. Finally, the organization has to be established in accordance with the processes.

Often, companies use the OPAB approach, which makes them feel more comfortable (Conway’s Law). For further reading in this context, I recommend the following posts from Jan Bosch:

 

Business and technology

I want to conclude by discussing ways to connect business and technology as you need both.

First, I want to point to an example that we presented in the Federated PLM interest group on LinkedIn. Although the discussion initially focused on technical capabilities, we concluded by connecting them to business transformational needs. The diagram below is our characteristic image used to explain the interaction between Systems of Record (the vertical pillars) and the Systems of Engagement (the horizontal bars – modularity).

Have a look at the business discussion below:

 

Next, the diagram below comes from a 2017 McKinsey whitepaper: Toward an integrated technology operating model. Here, the authors describe how a company can move toward an integrated technology operating model using both coordinated and connected technologies.

They do not mention PLM; they have a business focus, and it is important to mention a company can work in different modes. This is an organizational choice, but don’t let people work in two modes,

 

Conclusion

With this post, I hope I moved the focus from technology and tools to an understandable business focus. Even within my 1500 words, there is much more to say, and this makes our (PLM) mission so complex and interesting. Let me know where you can connect.

My passion and mission at the PLM Green Global Alliance

June 30, 2024 in Change, Circulair Economy, Climate Change, Green Development, Green Energy, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , | 1 comment

I am happy to see that the number of members of our PLM Green Global Alliance on LinkedIn has been growing fast recently.

Early this year, we reached 1000 members; now, as of this post, we have almost 1200 members in our LinkedIn group—a growth of 20 % in less than half a year!

Each member of the #plmgreen alliance has a unique story and reason for joining.

I’m genuinely interested in learning more about your motivation. To kick off this conversation, I am sharing my journey, and I am eager to hear your thoughts, comments, and suggestions.

Being aware this is again a long read, but I encourage you to read the article till the end.

Reading a 1500-word post was a 20th-century skill that helped people understand things with their nuances.
Let’s not lose this skill in the 21st century!

 

How it all started

Rich McFall reached out to me in late 2019, seeking individuals who shared our vision of establishing a platform for discussion and collaboration on green PLM. He was drawn to my 2015 blog post, ‘PLM and Global Warming,’ which I wrote six months before the famous Paris Agreement.

In my 2015 blog post, I drew a parallel between the slow response to digital transformation in the PLM domain and our collective inaction against climate change.

Despite the growing awareness of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there needed to be more urgency. This post was a call to action, not just for digital transformation in the PLM domain, but for our planet’s future. The cartoon below illustrates this mindset:

Both Rich and I felt that, when possible, we should use our energy and PLM-related skills to bring together a community of people who would take Climate Change and Sustainability seriously.

Rich’s focus was primarily on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas emissions. – a hot topic in the US, where my passion and interest were related to Sustainability and the Circular Economy – two overlapping topics with a different impact, both parts of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) as formulated and adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015.

“Climate change creates fear and polarization, whereas the Circular Economy is more of a long-term concept, more complex to grasp, or implement, however crucial for the future of the planet.”

 

The start in 2020

When we started in early 2020, a few people were interested in contributing to the alliance—their names are at the bottom of this post. After several internal Zoom meetings, we decided to focus on different Green areas.

The themes are available here: PLM Green Themes, i.e., Sustainability, the Circular Economy, Climate Change, Green Energy and Life Cycle Assessment.

In the beginning, the alliance was a small group of enthusiastic people supported by approximately 100 members in our LinkedIn group. As an organization of volunteers, we struggled with allocating time and resources to get the needed attention. In 2020, climate change and Sustainability were still niche topics in the PLM domain, and our audience was still small.

Our interactive medium was the LinkedIn group, where comments and likes were easily shared. Our PLM Green Global Alliance website would be the place where we consolidate information—a challenging approach for us with limited skills and budget.

 

Starting the interviews in 2022

In 2022, we started interviewing PLM-related software vendors. Together with Klaus Brettschneider and, more recently, Mark Reisig, we were happy to discover what the major players in our PLM ecosystem were doing regarding Sustainability.

We spoke with SAP (Feb 2022 – Circular Economy), Autodesk (March 2020 – empowering engineers), Dassault Systemes (May 2022 – company targets & Virtual Twin), Sustaira (Sept 2022 – Connecting the dots – ESG reporting) and Aras (Oct 2022 – the need for a digital thread)

 

2023 – A year of transition

Besides the software vendors, consultancy firms started to address the need for more sustainable product development and understanding of what to do, and we spoke with CIMdata (April 2023 – the importance of sustainable business models) and Transition Technologies PSC (October 2023 – their GreenPLM offering on top of the PTC PLM suite)

However, as a PLM Green Global Alliance, we discovered that more and more companies were considering moving away from greenwashing and toward implementing actual measures, some of them driven by upcoming regulations and country initiatives.

It was also a significant year for the PLM Green Global Alliance, as besides receiving increasingly encouraging messages, both CIMdata and CIMPA joined the alliance as moderators.

CIMdata, well known for its PLM consultancy and market analysis, started an additional consultancy practice related to PLM and Sustainability.

Mark Reisig, their lead consultant, joined us on the themes of Sustainability and Energy, also given his previous work career in that field.

CIMPA, a European PLM consultancy services company with roots in the aerospace industry, decided to support the alliance on the theme of the circular economy. Patrice Quencez and his team lead and moderate this activity.

 

Green in 2024 – what can we do?
Fear or Optimism? Fast and Slow!

One of the negative characteristics of the human mind is that we only want to act if it is indispensable. The brain’s evolutionary characteristic is to use the maximum amount of energy when there is a dangerous situation that forces us to act.

There is enough proof for this theory, and it is the main reason why we continue bad habits. The best book to recommend is Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

Ask yourself:

  • Should you study for the whole year or just before the exams?
  • Would you start smoking knowing it is likely killing you in the long term?
  • Would you save money for later, as then you might need it?
  • Would you spend hours/days mastering a topic, or would you be an expert on social media with some easy facts and statistics?
  • Would you act against climate change and overconsumption, knowing the reasons?

All the above questions illustrate that the majority of us (me too – there are no saints anymore) think fast, and media and marketing organizations know our weaknesses.

The result: we only get attention when there is a message of fear

An explanation of why good news channels have no subscribers, whereas bad/fake news and polarising messages create an emotion to act.

In our PLM Green Alliance Group, Rich started with a monthly news digest related to Climate change. In the beginning, it felt like only bad news and the climate changes and disasters were showing us the urgency to handle. Read the last Climate Change Chronicles here.

Bad news and fear might paralyze people.  You might think the topic is too big for me to handle; therefore, let’s do nothing. Do you remember the diagram below?

Fortunately, many people believe that something needs to be done.

A recent UNDP survey shows that 80 percent of people globally want more decisive government climate action. Read the news here, and if you are interested in how your country compares to the rest of the world, check it here.

The good news is that the majority supports measures; the bad news is that the minority is the most vocal and influential by having the means and motives not to change the current status quo. And they have been organizing themselves for years.

Therefore, there is some optimism – we need to organize!

Looking back, particularly over the last 1½ years, there are reasons for optimism. Progress might not go as fast as desired, but if you are open to action and your newsfeed algorithm is also switched to positive, you will find encouraging messages.

For example, follow Assaad Razouk; his posts are often encouraging – not creating rage.

Read the monthly ESG Newsletters published by Vincent de la Mar from Sustaira and discover the positive trend. You can find his latest May newsletter here as an example: Sustainability & ESG Insights May ’24: Biden’s carbon market plans & how to get back on track to Paris Targets.

Following the progress within Europe – after the European Green Deal with all its aspects, recently, the Nature Restoration Law was signed, pushing companies to use more generative resources. The Nature Restoration Law and the European Green Deal are regulations pushing for a more circular economy as both the left side (regenerative) and right side (hardware) of the famous butterfly are addressed.

 

Conclusion

We are making progress, and I hope this post makes you realize that you need to worry about climate change and the Sustainability of our planet. My passion, and the passion of all the people listed below, is to support a movement and not to be silent.

Now, I am asking you to share your story. Which topics do we need to address first? Can you share examples or facts that illustrate—that with 1200 members, we should not be part of the silent majority but become a respected voice?

 

We’d like to express our exceptional gratitude to all those who supported us or are still supporting us at any stage of our PLM Green Global Alliance. Feel motivated to join this group of the non-silent majority.

In an alfabetical order: Xavier Adam, Zoe Bezpalko, Tom Boudeville, Klaus Brettschneider, Nina Dar, Stephane Declee, Dave Duncan, Stephan Fester,  Bjorn Fidjeland, Ryan Flavelle, Matthias Fohrer, Roger L. Franz,  Lionel Grealou, Jon den Hartog, Patrick Hilberg, Yousef Hooshmand, Hannes Lindfred, Ilan Madjar, Vincent de la Mar, James Norman, Rich McFall,  Frank Popielas, Patrice Quencez, Mark Reisig, Audrey Reyniers, Erik Rieger,  Ryan Rochelle, Mark Rushton, Neil D’Souza, Jonathan Thery, Oleg Shilovitsky, Florence Verzelen, Darren West ,Patrick Willemsen, Rafał Witkowski, Morgan Zimmermann.

The various aspects of a System of Engagement – CoLab.

June 11, 2024 in PLM | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

Those who have been following my blog posts over the past two years may have discovered that I consistently use the terms “System of Engagement” and “System of Record” in the context of a Coordinated and Connected PLM infrastructure.

Understanding the distinction between ‘System of Engagement‘ and ‘System of Record‘ is crucial for comprehending the type of collaboration and business purpose in a PLM infrastructure. When explored in depth, these terms will reveal the underlying technology.

The concept

A year ago, I had an initial discussion with three representatives of a typical system of engagement. I spoke with Andre Wegner from Authentise, MJ Smith from CoLab and Oleg Shilovitsky from OpenBOM. You can read and see the interview here: The new side of PLM? Systems of Engagement!

As a follow-up, I had a more detailed interview with Taylor Young, the Chief Strategy Officer of CoLab, early this year.

CoLab introduced the term Design Engagement System (DES), a new TLA. Based on a survey among 250 global engineering leaders, we discussed the business impact and value of their DES System of Engagement.

You can read the discussion here: Where traditional PLM fails.

 

The business benefits

I like that CoLab’s external messaging focuses on the business capabilities and opportunities, which reminded me of the old Steve Jobs recording: Don’t talk about the product!

There are so many discussions on LinkedIn about the usage of various technologies and concepts without a connection to the business. I’ll let you explore and decide.

It’s worth noting that while the ‘System of Engagement’ offers significant business benefits, it’s not a standalone solution. The right technology is crucial for translating these benefits into tangible business results.

This was a key takeaway from my follow-up discussion with MJ Smith, CMO at CoLab, about the difference between Configuration and Customization.

Why configurability?

Hello MJ, it has been a while since we spoke, and this time, I am curious to learn how CoLab fits in an enterprise PLM infrastructure, zooming in on the aspects of configuration and customization.

Using configurability, we can make a smaller number of features work for more use cases or business processes. Users do not want to learn and adopt many different features, and a system of engagement should make it easy to participate in a business process, even for infrequent or irregular users.

In design review, this means cross-functional teams and suppliers who are not the core users of CAD or PLM.

I agree, and for that reason, we see the discussion of Systems of Record (not user-friendly and working in a coordinated mode) and Systems of Engagement (focus on the end-user and working in a connected mode). How do you differentiate with CoLab?

From a technology perspective, as a System of Engagement, CoLab wants to eliminate complex, multi-step workflows that require users to navigate between 5-10+ different point solutions to complete a review.

For example:

  • SharePoint for sending data
  • CAD viewers for interrogating models
  • PowerPoint for documenting markups – using screenshots
  • Email or Teams meetings for discussing issues
  • Spreadsheets for issue tracking
  • Traditional PLM systems for consolidation

As mentioned before, the participants can be infrequent or irregular users from different companies. This gap exists today, with only 20% of suppliers and 49% of cross-functional teams providing valuable design feedback (see the 2023 report here). To prevent errors and increase design quality, NPD teams must capture helpful feedback from these SMEs, many of whom only participate in 2 to 3 design reviews each year.

 

Configuration and Customization

Back to the interaction between the System of Engagement (CoLab) and Systems or Records, in this case, probably the traditional PLM system. I  think it is important to define the differences between Configuration and Customization first.

These would be my definitions:

  • Configuration involves setting up standard options and features in software to meet specific needs without altering the code, such as adjusting settings or using built-in tools.
  • Customization involves modifying the software’s code or adding new features to tailor it more precisely to unique requirements, which can include creating custom scripts, plugins, or changes to the user interface.

Both configuration and customization activities can be complex depending on the system we are discussing.

It’s also interesting to consider how configurability and customization can go hand in hand. What starts as a customization for one customer could become a configurable feature later.

For software providers like CoLab, the key is to stay close to your customers so that you can understand the difference between a niche use case – where customization may be the best solution – vs. something that could be broadly applicable.

In my definition of customization, I first thought of connecting to the various PLM and CAD systems. Are these interfaces standardized, or are they open to configuration and customization?

CoLab offers out-of-the-box integrations with PLM systems, including Windchill, Teamcenter, and 3DX Enovia. By integrating PLM with CoLab, companies can share files straight from PLM to CoLab without having to export or convert to a neutral format like STP.

By sharing CAD from PLM to CoLab, companies make it possible for non-PLM users – inside the company and outside (e.g., suppliers, customers) to participate in design reviews. This use case is an excellent example of how a system of engagement can be used as the connection point between two companies, each with its own system of record.

CoLab can also send data back to PLM. For example, you can see whether there is an open review on a part from within Windchill PLM and how many unresolved comments exist on a file shared with CoLab from PLM. Right now, there are some configurable aspects to our integrations – such as file-sharing controls for Windchill users.

We plan to invest more in the configurability of the PLM to DES interface. We will also invest in our REST API, which customers can use to build custom integrations if they like, instead of using our OOTB integrations.

To get an impression, look at this 90-second demo of CoLab’s Windchill integration for reference.

 

Talking about IP security is a topic that is always mentioned when companies interact with each other, and in particular in a connected mode. Can you tell us more about how Colab deals with IP protection?

CoLab has enterprise customers, like Schaeffler, implementing attribute-based access controls so that users can only access files in CoLab that they would otherwise have access to in Windchill.

We also have customers who integrate CoLab with their ERP system to auto-provision guest accounts for suppliers so they can participate in design reviews.

This means that the OEM is responsible for identifying which data is shared within CoLab. I am curious: Are these kinds of IP-sharing activities standardized because you have a configurable interface to the PLM/ERP, or is this still a customization?

I am referring to this point in the Federated PLM Interest Group. We discuss using OSLC as one of the connecting interfaces between the System of Record and the System of Engagement (Modules)—it’s still in the early days, as you can read in this article—but we see encouraging similar results. Is this a topic of attention for CoLab, too?

The interface between CoLab and PLM is the same for every customer (not custom) but can be configured with attributes-based access controls. End users who have access must explicitly share files. Further access controls can also be put in place on the CoLab side to protect IP.

We are taking a similar approach to integrating as outlined by OSLC. The OSLC concept is interesting to us, as it appears to provide a framework for better-supporting concepts such as versions and variants. The interface delegation concepts are also of interest.

 

Conclusion

It was great to dive deeper into the complementary value of CoLab as a typical System of Engagement. Their customers are end-users who want to collaborate efficiently during design reviews. By letting their customers work in a dedicated but connected environment, they are released from working in a traditional, more administrative PLM system.

Interfacing between these two environments will be an interesting topic to follow in the future. Will it be, for example, OSLC-based, or do you see other candidates to standardize?

PLM and Sustainability: continue talking with PTC

June 2, 2024 in Circulair Economy, Data centric, Material Compliance, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

We, the PLM Green Global Alliance, started our first interviews with PLM-related software vendors two years ago in 2022 with SAP, and recently, we revisited them for a much broader interview.

The initial interview in 2022 focused on companies getting pushed by legislation related to plastic packaging and how they could collect and analyze their product data.

Now, two years later, we discussed a much broader scope, including the Circular Economy and even Circular Manufacturing in the automotive industry. You can read and listen to this interview following this link: The PGGA talking again with SAP on Sustainability.

However, as it is claimed that almost eighty percent of the environmental impact of a product is defined and decided during its design phase, we were eager to learn from the primary PLM vendors what they have observed.

 

PTC

We were fortunate to talk again with Dave Duncan,  VP Sustainability at PTC, who had just returned from a three-month tour in Europe, talking with 200 manufacturers in 21 different locations and having deep discussions to understand the market and their customer’s needs.

You could follow his movements through Europe on LinkedIn and his posting from the Munich workshop was fascinating. Besides meeting customers, there were also PTC partners like MakerSite, aPriori, and Transition Technologies PSC. All three companies have recently contributed to our PGGA series related to Sustainability.

Together with Dave, we spoke again with James Norman, who is responsible for driving PTC’s solutions and strategy for the digital and Sustainability transformation. He helped us make the connection between what’s happening in the field and what PTC is considering.

When listening to the interview, you will observe that in the PLM domain, so much has changed in the past two years.

Enjoy the 36 minutes of the interview and listen to what Dave has learned from the field, as reflected by James, on how PTC is addressing Sustainability.


Slides shown during the interview combined with additional company information can be found HERE.

 

What we have learned

  •  The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) has forced companies to address Sustainability and the need for the digitalization of their processes (the digital thread)
  • For Sustainability impact, do not focus just on the component properties; identify hot-spots when analyzing analyzing the impact of the product on the product level.
  • As the OEM often only assembles the final product, the environmental impact is defined upstream in the supply chain.
  • Modularity and Systems Thinking are crucial methodologies for implementing a Circular Economy.
  • If you only consider the cradle-to-gate part of a product’s lifecycle, you might miss the big picture entirely. Even worse, you might implement design changes in the name of sustainability that result in outcomes far less sustainable than the original design. It’s crucial to look at the entire Product Service System/lifecycle to truly understand a product’s environmental impact
  • We did not talk about Digital Twins and AI this time. Implementing a connected Digital Thread is, at this moment, the highest priority.

 

Want to learn more?

 

Conclusion

I enjoyed the dialogue with Dave and James and the progress we all have made towards understanding what is needed to ensure a sustainable future for our planet. So much has changed in two years.

PLM plays a crucial role in the discussion of a circular economy, the need for modularity, and sustainability reporting. All of these elements require a digital infrastructure related to the products we manufacture or use.

In addition, I was impressed by Dave’s pragmatic approach, who was in the hot spots of European manufacturing companies to understand their needs instead of telling them about their should-be dreams.

 

 

Curiosity, Innovation and Modern PLM

May 28, 2024 in PLM | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

The past two weeks have been a fascinating journey, delving into the intersection of Curiosity, Innovation, and modern PLM. Where many PLM-related posts are about the best products and the best architectures, there is also the “soft” angle – people and culture – which I believe is the most important to start from. Without the right people and the right mindset, every PLM implementation is ready to fail.

First, I worked with Stefaan van Hooydonk, the founder of the Global Curiosity Institute and author of the bestselling book The Workplace Curiosity Manifesto, on the article Curiosity as Guiding Principle for PLM Change, which explained the importance of Curiosity in the context of sustainable product development (PLM).

The intersection between Curiosity and modern PLM is Systems Thinking.

Systems Thinking: A Crucial 21st Century Skill for Sustainable Product Development, Driven by Curiosity.

Last week, I had the privilege of attending the CADCAM Lab conference in Ljubljana. In addition to my keynote, I was inspired by several presentations on the various aspects of digital transformation: the tools, possible enablement, and the needed mindset.

One of the highlights was the talk by Tanja Mohorič, the director for innovation culture and European projects in Slovene corporation Hidria and director of Slovene Automotive Cluster ACS. Tanja shared her insights on fostering Innovation, a crucial driver for a sustainable business as companies need to innovate in order to remain significant.

One of the intersections between Innovation and modern PLM is Curiosity

Innovation is defined as the process of bringing about new ideas, methods, products, services, or solutions that have significant positive impact and value.

Let’s zoom in on these two themes.

Curiosity

I knew Stefaan from his keynote at the PLM Road Map / PDT Europe 2022 conference; you can read my review from his session here:  The week after PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe 2022.

It was an eye-opener for many of us focusing on the PLM domain. Stefaan’s message is that Curiosity is not only a personal skill; it is also something of a company’s culture. And in this age of rapid change, companies that embrace a culture of openness are outperforming their peers.

This time, on Earth Day (April 22nd), Stefaan organized an interactive webinar titled “Curiosity and the Planet,” which addressed the need for new technologies and approaches to living in a sustainable future. With my Green PLM-twisted mind, I immediately saw the overlap and intersection between our missions.

We decided to write an article together on this topic, in which we described a pathway for companies that want to develop more sustainable products or solutions, using Curiosity as one of the means.

As companies need to find their path to the digitization of their PLM infrastructure due to regulations, ESG reporting, and potentially the introduction of digital product passports and the circular economy, they need to act fast in an area not familiar to them.

Here, a curious organization will outperform the traditional, controlled enterprise.

You can read the full article here: Curiosity as Guiding Principle for PLM Change.

And as I know in our hasty society, not everyone will read the article although I think you should. For those who do not read the details, I close this topic with a quote from the article:

We define Curiosity as the mindset to challenge the status quo, explore, discover and learn.

Curiosity is often considered a trait linked to an individual, as exemplified by the constant questions of children or scientists. Groups of people or organizations can also be curious collectively. Research from INSEAD studying the level of Curiosity across the executive team uncovered that these teams are superior in two distinct ways: first, they are better at future Innovation, and second, they are better at optimizing their current operations. Curiosity on the executive team leads not only to future success but also to better short-term business results. Such teams create the perfect environment for their teams to thrive.

​Change, however, is hard, and people are often left to their own devices; they prefer to perpetuate the known past rather than invite an unknown future. Curiosity helps us lean into uncertainty. It encourages us to slow down and observe whether the status quo we hold dear is still relevant. Curiosity is the prime catalyst for change. It invites open questions.

 

Innovation

There is often confusion between Invention and Innovation. Where invention is the “Eureka” moment where a new idea gets its shape, Innovation is the process of bringing new ideas, methods, products, services, or solutions to the market.

I presented this topic at the 2013  Product Innovation Conference in Berlin. The title of the presentation was PLM Loves Innovation, and you can find it here on SlideShare.

Looking back at the presentation, I realized we were thinking linear.

Concepts of an iterative approach, DevOps and a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) were not yet there. Meanwhile, thanks to digitization, bringing Innovation to the market has changed, which made Tanja Mohorič’s presentation a significant refresh of the mind.

Tanja’s lecture was illustrated by various quotes, you can find them in her presentation . Here are a few examples:

If you really look closely, most overnight successes took a long time. (Steve Jobs)

If you read Steve Jobs’s history at Apple, you will discover it has been a long journey. Although we like to praise the hero, there were many other, less visible people and patents involved in bringing Apple’s Innovation to the market.

Innovation is the ability to convert ideas into invoices (Lewis Dunacan)

What I like about this quote is that it also shows the importance of having a positive financial outcome. Bringing Innovation to the market is a matter of timing. If you are too early, there is no market for your product (yet), and if you are too late, the market share or margin is gone.

Minds are like parachutes – they only function when open (Thomas Dewar)

Curiosity and an open mind remain needed. The parachute quote is a quote to remember, mainly if you work in a traditional, established company. The risk of conformance is high, and a “we know the best” attitude might be killing the company, as we have seen from some management examples, like Kodak, NOKIA, and others.

Tanja’s presentation addressing the elements that support Innovation and those that kill Innovation can be found here: INNOVATION AS A PRECONDITION TO SUCCESS_Tanja Mohorič.

I want to close with one of the essential images that she shared, which is very aligned with how I see companies should consider their future, not as an evolutionary path to survive but as a journey to be inspired.

 

Coaching

As the CADCAM Group is a significant implementer of the Dassault Systèmes portfolio, my presentation about digital transformation in the PLM Domain was focused on their terminology and capabilities. You can find my presentation on SlideShare here.

However, the HOW part of digital transformation is more or less independent of the software. Here, it is about people, digital skills and new ways of working, which can be challenging for an existing enterprise as the linear business must continue. You might have seen the diagram below from previous blog posts/presentations.

The challenge I discussed with a few companies was how to apply it to your company.

First of all, I am still promoting McKinsey’s approach described in their article Our insights/toward an integrated technology operating model from 2017, which might not directly mention PLM at first glance. The way you work in your business should reflect the way you work with PLM and vice versa.

Where the traditional application-domain-based model reflects the existing coordinated business, the transformation takes place by learning to work first in small pods and later in digital product teams.

It seems evident that these new teams will be staffed with young, digital-native people. However, it remains crucial that these teams are coached by experienced people who help the team benefit from their vast experience.

It is like in soccer. Having eleven highly skilled young players does not make a team successful. Success depends on the combination of the trainer and the coach, and it is a continuous interaction throughout the season.

Therefore, a question for your organization: “Where are your coaches and trainers?”

I addressed this topic in my post: PLM 2020- The next decade (4 challenges), where the topic of changing organizations and retiring people became apparent.

As a rule of thumb, I would claim that you should try to give somebody with unique knowledge and who will be retiring in 2 – 3 years the role of coach and is no longer an operational mission. It may look less effective; however, it will contribute to a smooth knowledge transition from a coordinated to a coordinated and connected enterprise.

 

Conclusion

It was great to be inspired by some of the “soft” topics related to modern PLM. We like to discuss the usage of drawings, intelligent part numbers, the EBOM, MBOM, and SBOM or a cloud infrastructure. However I enjoyed discussing perhaps the most essential parts of a successful PLM implementation: the people, their motivation and their attitude to Curiosity and Innovation – their willingness to get inspired by the future.

What do you see as the most important topic to address in the future?

How to Avoid Migration Migraine? – part 2

May 15, 2024 in 3D CAD management, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, digital thread, Migrations, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two weeks ago, I shared my first post about PDM/PLM migration challenges on LinkedIn: How to avoid Migration Migraine – part 1. Most of the content discussed was about data migrations.

Starting from moving data stored in relational databases to modern object-oriented environments – the technology upgrade. But also the challenges a company can have when merging different data siloes (CAD & BOM related) into a single PLM backbone to extend the support of product data beyond engineering.

Luckily, the post generated a lot of reactions and feedback through LinkedIn and personal interactions last week.

The amount of interaction illustrated the relevance of the topic for people; they recognized the elephant in the room, too.

 

Working with a partner

Data migrations and consolidation are typically not part of a company’s core business, so it is crucial to find the right partner for a migration project. The challenge with migrations is that there is potentially a lot to do technically, but only your staff can assess the quality and value of migrations.

Therefore, when planning a migration, make sure you work on it iteratively with an experienced partner who can provide a set of tools and best practices. Often, vendors or service partners have migration tools that still need to be tuned to your As-Is and To-Be environment.

To get an impression of what a PLM service partner can do and which topics or tools are relevant in the context of mid-market PLM, you can watch this xLM webinar on YouTube. So make sure you select a partner who is familiar with your PDM/PLM infrastructure and who has the experience to assess complexity.

 

Migration lessons learned

In my PLM coaching career I have seen many migrations. In the early days they were more related to technology upgrades, consolidation of data and system replacements. Nowadays the challenges are more related to become more data-driven. Here are 5 lessons that I learned in the past twenty years:

  1. A fixed price for the migration can be a significant risk as the quality of the data and the result are hard to comprehend upfront. In case of a fixed price, either you would pay for the moon (taking all the risk), or your service partner would lose a lot of money. In a sustainable business model, there should be no losers.
  2. Start (even now) with checking and fixing your data quality. For example, when you are aware of a mismatch between CAD assemblies and BOM data, analyze and fix discrepancies even before the migration.
  3. One immediate action to take when moving from CAD assemblies to BOM structures is to check or fill the properties in the CAD system to support a smooth transition. Filling properties might be a temporary action, as later, when becoming more data-driven, some of these properties, e.g., material properties or manufacturer part numbers, should not be maintained in the CAD system anymore. However, they might help migration tools to extract a richer dataset.
  4. Focus on implementing an environment ready for the future. Don’t let your past data quality compromise complexity. In such a case, learn to live with legacy issues that will be fixed only when needed. A 100 % matching migration is not likely to happen because the source data might also be incorrect, even after further analysis.
  5. The product should probably not be configured in the CAD environment, even because the CAD tool allows it. I had this experience with SolidWorks in the past. PDM became the enemy because the users managed all configuration options in the assembly files, making it hard to use it on the BOM or Product level (the connected digital thread).

 

 The future is data-driven

In addition, these migration discussions made me aware again that so many companies are still in the early phases of creating a unified PLM infrastructure in their company and implementing the coordinated approach – an observation I shared in my report on the PDSFORUM 2024 conference.

Due to sustainability-related regulations and the need to understand product behavior in the field (Digital Twin / Product As A Service), becoming data-driven is an unavoidable target in the near future. Implementing a connected digital thread is crucial to remaining competitive and sustainable in business.

However, the first step is to gain insights about the available data (formats and systems) and its quality. Therefore, implementing a coordinated PLM backbone should immediately contain activities to improve data quality and implement a data governance policy to avoid upcoming migration issues.

Data-driven environments, the Systems of Engagement, bring the most value when connected through a digital thread with the Systems of Record (PLM. ERP and others), therefore,  design your processes, even current ones, user-centric, data-centric and build for change (see Yousef Hooshmand‘s story in this post – also image below).

 

The data-driven Future is not a migration.

The last part of this article will focus on what I believe is a future PLM architecture for companies. To be more precise, it is not only a PLM architecture anymore. It should become a business architecture based on connected platforms (the systems of record) and inter-platform connected value streams (the systems of engagement).

The discussion is ongoing, and from the technical and business side, I recommend reading Prof Dr. Jorg Fischer’s recent articles, for example. The Crisis of Digitalization – Why We All Must Change Our Mindset! or The MBOM is the Steering Wheel of the Digital Supply Chain! A lot of academic work has been done in the context of TeamCenter and SAP.

Also, Martin Eigner recently described in The Constant Conflict Between PLM and ERP a potential digital future of enterprise within the constraints of existing legacy systems.

In my terminology, they are describing a hybrid enterprise dominated by major Systems of Record complemented by Systems of Engagement to support optimized digital value streams.

Whereas Oleg Shilovitsky, coming from the System of Engagement side with OpenBOM, describes the potential technologies to build a digital enterprise as you can read from one of his recent posts: How to Unlock the Future of Manufacturing by Opening PLM/ERP to Connect Processes and Optimize Decision Support.

All three thought leaders talk about the potential of connected aspects in a future enterprise. For those interested in the details there is a lot to learn and understand.

For the sake of the migration story I stay out of the details. However interesting to mention, they also do not mention data migration—is it the elephant in the room?

I believe moving from a coordinated enterprise to a integrated (coordinated and connected) enterprise is not a migration, as we are no longer talking about a single system that serves the whole enterprise.

The future of a digital enterprise is a federated environment where existing systems need to become more data-driven, and additional collaboration environments will have their internally connected capabilities to support value streams.

With this in mind you can understand the 2017 McKinsey article– Our insights/toward an integrated technology operating model – the leading image below:

And when it comes to realization of such a concept, I have described the Heliple-2 project a few times before as an example of such an environment, where the target is to have a connection between the two layers through standardized interfaces, starting from OSLC. Or visit the Heliple Federated PLM LinkedIn group.

Data architecture and governance are crucial.

The image above generalizes the federated PLM concept and illustrates the two different systems connected through data bridges. As data must flow between the two sides without human intervention, the chosen architecture must be well-defined.

Here, I want to use a famous quote from Youssef Housmand’s paper From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and Data Mesh. Click on the image to listen to the Share PLM podcast with Yousef.

From a Single Source of Truth towards a principle of the Nearest Source of Truth based on a Single Source of Change

  • If you agree with this quote, you have a future mindset of federated PLM.
  • If you still advocate the Single Source of Truth, you are still in the Monolithic PLM phase.

It’s not a problem if you are aware that the next step should be federated and you are not ready yet.

However, in particular, environmental regulations and sustainability initiatives can only be performed in data-driven, federated environments. Think about the European Green Deal with its upcoming Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Directive (ESPR), which demands digital traceability of products, their environmental impact, and reuse /recycle options, expressed in the Digital Product Passport.

Reporting, Greenhouse Gas Reporting and ESG reporting are becoming more and more mandatory for companies, either by regulations or by the customers. Only a data-driven connected infrastructure can deal with this efficiently. Sustaira, a company we interviewed with the PLM Green Global Alliance last year, delivers such a connected infrastructure.

Read the challenges they meet in their blog post:  Is inaccurate sustainability data holding you back?

Finally, to perform Life Cycle Assessments for design options or Life Cycle Analyses for operational products, you need connections to data sources in real-time. The virtual design twin or the digital twin in operation does not run on documents.

 

Conclusion

Data migration and consolidation to modern systems is probably a painful and challenging process. However, the good news is that with the right mindset to continue and with a focus on data quality and governance, the next step to a integrated coordinated and connected enterprise will not be that painful. It can be an evolutionary process, as the McKinsey article describes it.

Translate

  1. Oleg Shilovitsky's avatar

    Hi Jos, Knowing your background in methodology and education, I wanted to share a longer article with you: “What is…

  2. Bart Willemsen's avatar

    Interesting reflection, Jos. In my experience, the situation you describe is very recognizable. At the company where I work, sustainability…

  4. Unknown's avatar
  5. Håkan Kårdén's avatar

    Jos, all interesting and relevant. There are additional elements to be mentioned and Ontologies seem to be one of the…