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.

How to avoid Migration Migraine – part 1

April 30, 2024 in 3D CAD management, EBOM, Migrations, PDM, PLM, Smart Numbers | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

In the past months, I have had several discussions related to migrating PLM data, either from one system to another or from consolidating a collection of applications into a single environment. Does this sound familiar?

Let me share some experiences and lessons learned to avoid the Migration Migraine.

It is not a technical guide but a collection of experiences and thoughts that you might have missed when considering to solve the technical dream.

Halfway I realized I was too ambitious; therefore, another post will follow this introduction. Here, I will focus on the business side and the digital transformation journey.

 

Garbage Out – Garbage In

The Garbage Out-In statement is somehow the paradigm we are used to in our day-to-day lives. When you buy a new computer, you use backup and restore. Even easier, nowadays, the majority of the data is already in the cloud.

This simple scenario assumes that all professional systems should be easily upgrade-able. We become unaware of the amount of data we store and its relevance.

This phenomenon already has a name: “Dark Data.” Dark Data consumes storage energy in the cloud and is no longer visible. Please read all about it here: Dark Data.

TIP 1: Every migration is a moment to clean up your data. By dragging everything with you, the burden of migrating becomes bigger. In easy migrations, do a clean-up—it prevents future, more extensive issues.

Never follow the Garbage Out – Garbage in principle, even if it is easy!

 

Migrations in the PLM domain are different – setting the scene.

Before discussing the various scenarios, let’s examine what companies are doing. For early PLM adopters in the Automotive, Aerospace, and Defense Industries, migrations from mainframes to modern infrastructures have become impossible. The real problem is not only the changing hardware but also the changing data and data models.

For these companies, the solution is often to build an entirely new PLM infrastructure on top of the existing infrastructure, where manageable data pieces are migrated to new environments using data lakes, dashboards, and custom apps to support modern users.

Migration in this case is a journey as long as the data lives – and we can learn from them!

 

Follow the money

From a business perspective, migrations are considered a negative distractor. Talking about them raises awareness of their complexity, which might jeopardize enthusiasm.

For the initiator, the PLM software vendor or implementer, it might endanger the sales deal.

Traditional IT organizations strive for simplification—one CAD, one PLM or one ERP system to manage. Although this argument makes sense, an analysis should always be done comparing the benefits and the (migration) costs and risks to reach the ideal situation.

In those discussions often, migrations are downplayed

Without naming companies, I have observed the downplaying several times, even at some prominent enterprises. So, if you recognize your company in this process, you are not alone.

TIP 2: Migrations are never simple. Make migration a serious topic of your PLM project – as important as the software. This approach means analyzing the potential migration risks and their mitigation is needed.

Please read about the Xylem story in my recent post: The week after the PDSFORUM 2024

The Big Bang has the highest risk and might again lead to garbage out—garbage in.

 

You are responsible for your garbage.

It may sound disparaging, but it is not. Most companies are aware that people, tools and policies have changed over the years. Due to the coordinated approach to working, disciplines did not need to care about downstream or upstream usage of their initially created data – Excel and PDFs are the bridges between disciplines.

All the actual knowledge and context are stored in the heads of experienced employees who have gotten used to dealing with inconsistencies. And they will retire, so there is an urgent need for actual data quality and governance. Read more about the journey from Coordinated to Connected in these articles.

Even if you are not yet thinking about migrations, the digital transformation in the PLM domain is coming, and we should learn to work in a connected mode.

TIP 3: Create a team in your organization that assesses the current data quality and defines the potential future enterprise (data) architecture. Then, start improving the quality of the current generated data. Like the ISO 900x standard, the ISO 8000 standard already exists for data quality.

The future is data-driven; prepare yourself for the future.

 

Migration scenarios and their best practices

Here are some migrations scenario’s – two in this post and more in an upcoming post.

 

From Relational to Object-oriented

One of my earlier projects, starting in 2010 with SmarTeam, was migrating a mainframe-based application for airplane certification to a modern Microsoft infrastructure.

The goal was to create a new environment that could be used both as a replacement for the mainframe application and as the design and validation environment to implement changes to the current airplanes during a maintenance or upgrade activity.

The need was high because detailed documentation about the logic of the current application did not exist, and only one person who understood the logic was partly available.

So, internally, the relational database was a black box. The tables in the database contained a mix of item data, document data, change status and versions. The documents were stored in directories with meaningful file names but disconnected from the application.

The initial estimate was that the project would take two to three months, so a fixed price for two months was agreed upon. However, it became almost a two-year project, and in the end, the result seemed to be reliable (there was never mathematical proof).

The disadvantage was that SmarTeam ended up being so highly customized that automatic upgrades would not work for this version anymore—a new legacy was created with modern technology.

The same story, combined with the example of Ericsson’s migration attempt, is described in the 2016 post, The PLM Migration Dilemma. For me, the lesson learned from these examples leads to the following recommendation.

TIP 4: When there is a paradigm change in the data model, don’t migrate but establish a new (data-driven) infrastructure and connect to your legacy as much as possible in read-only mode.

The automotive and aerospace industries’ story is one of paradigm change.

Listen to the SharePLM podcast Revolutionizing PLM: Insights from Yousef Hooshmand, where Yousef also discusses how to address this transition process.

 

CAD/PDM to PLM

Another migration step happens when companies decide to implement a traditional PLM infrastructure as a System of Record, merging PDM data (mainly CAD) and ERP data (the BOM).

Some of these companies have been working file-based and have stored their final CAD files in folders; others might have a local PDM system native to the 3D CAD. The EBOM usually existed digitally in ERP, and most of the time, it is not a “pure” EBOM but more of a hybrid EBOM/MBOM.

The image above show this type of migration can be very challenging as, in the source systems, there is not necessarily a consistent 3D CAD definition matching the BOM items. As the systems have been disconnected in the past, people have potentially added missing information or fixed information on the BOM side. As in most companies, the manufacturing definition is based on drawings, and the consistency with the 3D CAD definition is not guaranteed.

To address this challenge, companies need to assess the usability of the CAD and BOM data. Is it possible to populate the CAD files with properties that are necessary for an import? For example, does the file path contain helpful information?

I have experienced a situation where a company has poorly defined 3D parts and no properties, as all the focus was on using the 3D to generate the 2D drawing.

The relevant details for manufacturing were next added to the drawing and not anymore to the parts or models – traceability was almost impossible.

In this situation, importing the 3D CAD structures into the new PLM system has limited value. An alternative is to describe and test procedures for handling legacy data when it is needed, either to implement a design change or a new order. Leave the legacy accessible, but do not migrate.

The BOM side is, in theory, stable for manufactured products, as the data should have gone through a release process. However, the company needs to revisit its part definition process for new designs and products.

Some points to consider:

  1. Meaningful identifiers are not desired in a PLM system as they create a legacy. Therefore, the import of parts with smart identifiers should map to relevant part properties besides the ID. Splitting the ID into properties will create a broader usage in the future. Read more in Smart Part Numbers – do we need them?
  2. In addition, companies should try to avoid having logistic information, such as supplier-specific part numbers to come from the CAD system. Supplier parts in your CAD environment create inefficiencies when a supplier part becomes obsolete. Concepts such as EBOM and MBOM and potentially the SBOM should be well understood during this migration.
  3. Concepts of EBOM and MBOM should also be introduced when moving from an ETO to a CTO approach or when modularity is a future business strategy.

 

 

Conclusion

As every company is on its PLM journey and technology is evolving, there will always be a migration discussion. Understanding and working towards the future should be the most critical driver for migration. Migrations in the PLM domain are often more than a data migration – new ways of working should be introduced in parallel. And for that reason the “big bang” is often too costly and demotivating for the future.

 

 

The week after the PDSFORUM 2024

April 21, 2024 in CAD data management, Circulair Economy, Digital Enterprise, digital thread, Digital Twin, Material Compliance, MBD, MBE, Modularity, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

I attended the PDSVISION forum for the first time, a two-day PLM event in Gothenburg organized by PTC’s largest implementer in the Nordics, also active in North America, the UK, and Germany.

The theme of the conference: Master your Digital Thread – a hot topic, as it has been discussed in various events, like the recent PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe conference in November 2023.

The event drew over 200 attendees, showing the commitment of participants, primarily from the Nordics, to knowledge sharing and learning.

The diverse representation included industry leaders like Vestas, pioneers in Sustainable Energy, and innovative startups like CorPower Ocean, who are dedicated to making wave energy reliable and competitive. Notably, the common thread among these diverse participants was their focus on sustainability, a growing theme in PLM conferences and an essential item on every board’s strategic agenda.

I enjoyed the structure and agenda of the conference. The first day was filled with lectures and inspiring keynotes. The second day was a day of interactive workshops divided into four tracks, which were of decent length so we could really dive into the topics. As you can imagine, I followed the sustainability track.

Here are some of my highlights of this conference.

 

Catching the Wind: A Digital Thread From Design to Service

Simon Saandvig Storbjerg, unfortunately remote,  gave an overview of the PLM-related challenges that Vestas is addressing. Vestas, the undisputed market leader in wind energy, is indirectly responsible for 231 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

One of the challenges of wind power energy is the growing complexity and need for variants. With continuous innovation and the size of the wind turbine, it is challenging to achieve economic benefits of scale.

As an example, Simon shared data related to the Lost Production Factor, which was around 5% in 2009 and reduced to 2% in 2017 and is now growing again. This trend is valid not only for Vestas but also for all wind turbine manufacturers, as variability is increasing.

Vestas is introducing modularity to address these challenges. I reported last year about their modularity journey related to the North European Modularity biannual meeting held at Vestas in Ringkøbing – you can read the post here.

Simon also addressed the importance of Model-Based Definition (MBD), which is crucial if you want to achieve digital continuity between engineering and manufacturing. In particular, in this industry, MBD is a challenge to involve the entire value chain, despite the fact that the benefits are proven and known. Change in people skills and processes remains a challenge.

 

The Future of Product Design and Development

The session led by PTC from Mark Lobo, General Manager for the PLM Segment, and Brian Thompson, General Manager of the CAD Segment, brought clarity to the audience on the joint roadmap of Windchill and Creo.

Mark and Brian highlighted the benefits of a Model-Based Enterprise and Model-Based Definition, which are musts if you want to be more efficient in your company and value chain.

The WHY is known, see the benefits described in the image, and requires new ways of working, something organizations need to implement anyway when aiming to realize a digital thread or digital twin.

In addition, Mark addressed PTC’s focus on Design for Sustainability and their partner network. In relation to materials science, the partnership with Ansys Granta MI is essential. It was presented later by Ansys and discussed on day two during one of the sustainability workshops.

Mark and Brian elaborated on the PTC SaaS journey – the future atlas platform and the current status of WindChill+ and Creo+, addressing a smooth transition from existing customers to a new future architecture.

And, of course, there was the topic of Artificial Intelligence.

Mark explained that PTC is exploring AI in various areas of the product lifecycle, like validating requirements, optimizing CAD models, streamlining change processes on the design side but also downstream activities like quality and maintenance predictions, improved operations and streamlined field services and service parts are part of the PTC Copilot strategy.

PLM combined with AI is for sure a topic where the applicability and benefits can be high to improve decision-making.

 

PLM Data Merge in the PTC Cloud: The Why & The How

Mikael Gustafson from Xylem, a leading Global Water Solutions provider, described their recently completed project: merging their on-premise Windchill instance TAPIR and their cloud Windchill XGV into a single environment.

TAPIR stands for Technical Administration, Part Information Repository and is very much part-centric and used in one organization. XGV stands for Xylem Global Vault, and it is used in 28 organizations with more of a focus on CAD data (Creo and AutoCAD). Two different siloes are to be joined in one instance to build a modern, connected, data-driven future or, as Mikael phrased it: “A step towards a more manageable Virtual Product“.

It was a severe project involving a lot of resources and time, again showing the challenges of migrations. I am planning to publish a blog post, the draft title “Migration Migraine,” as this type of migration is prevalent in many places because companies want to implement a single PLM backbone beyond (mechanical) engineering.

What I liked about the approach was its focus on assessing the risks and prioritizing a mitigation strategy if necessary. As the list below shows, even the COVID-19 pandemic was challenging the project.

Often, big migration projects fail due to optimism or by assessing some of the risks at the start and then giving it a go.

When failures happen, there is often the blame game: Was it the software, the implementer, or the customer (past or present) that caused the troubles? Mediating in such environments has been a long time my mission as the “Flying Dutchman,” and from my experience, it is not about the blame game; it is, most of the time, too high expectations and not enough time or resources to fully control this journey.

As Michael said, Xylem was successful, and during the go-live, only a few non-critical issues popped up.

When asked what he would do differently with the project’s hindsight, Mikael mentioned he would do the migrations not as a big project but as smaller projects.

I can relate a lot to this answer as, by experience, the “one-time” migration projects have created a lot of stress for the company, and only a few of them were successful.

 

Starting being coordinated and then connected

Several sessions were held where companies shared their PLM journey, to be mapped along the maturity slide (slide 8) I shared in my session: The Why, What and How of Digital Transformation in the PLM domain. You can review the content here on SlideShare.

There was Evolabel, a company starting its PLM journey because they are suffering from ineffective work procedures, information islands and the increasing complexity of its products.

Evolabel realized it needed PLM to realize its market ambition: To be a market leader within five years. For Evolabel, PLM is a must that is repeatable and integrated internally.

They shared how they first defined the required understanding and mindset for the needed capabilities before implementing them. In my terminology, they started to implement a coordinated PLM approach.

Teddy Svenson from JBT, a well-known manufacturer of food-tech solutions, described their next step in PLM. From an old AS/400 system with very little integration to PDM to a complete PLM system with parts, configurations, and change management.

It is not an easy task but a vital stepping stone for future development and a complete digital thread, from sales to customer care. In my terminology, they were upgrading their technology to improve their coordinated approach to be ready for the next digital evolution.

There were several other presentations on Day One – See the agenda here  I cannot cover them all given the limited size of this blog post.

 

The Workshops

As I followed the Sustainability track, I cannot comment much on the other track; however, given the presenters and the topics, they all appeared to be very pragmatic and interactive – given the format.

Achieving sustainability goals by integrating material intelligence into the design process

In the sustainability track, we started with Manuelle Clavel from Ansys Granta, who explained in detail how material data and its management are crucial for designing better-performing, more sustainable, and compliant products.

With the importance of compliance with (upcoming) regulations and the usage of material characteristics in the context of more sustainable products and being able to perform a Life Cycle Assessment, it is crucial to have material information digitally available, both in the CAD design environment as well in the PLM environment.

For me, a dataset of material properties is an excellent example of how it is used in a connected enterprise. You do not want to copy the information from system to system; it needs to be connected and available in real-time.

How can we design more sustainable products?

Together with Martin Lundqvist from QCM, I conducted an interactive session. We started with the need for digitalization, then looked at RoHS and REACH compliance and discussed the upcoming requirements of the Digital Product Passport.

We closed the session with a dialogue on the circular economy.

From the audience, we learned that many companies are still early in understanding the implementation of sustainability requirements and new processes. However, some were already quite advanced and acting. In particular, it is essential to know if your company is involved with batteries (DPP #1) or is close to consumers.

 

Conclusion

The PDSFORUM was for me an interesting experience for meeting companies at all different stages of their PLM journey. All sessions I attended were realistic, and the solutions were often pragmatic. In my day-to-day life, inspiring companies to understand a digital and sustainable future, you sometimes forget the journey everyone is going through.

Thanks, PDVISION, for inviting me to speak and learn at this conference.

and some sad news …..

I was sorry to learn that last week, Dr. Ken Versprille suddenly passed away. I know Ken, as shown in the picture – a passionate moderator and timekeeper of the PLM Roadmap / PDT conferences, well prepared for the details. May his spirit live through the future conferences – the next one already on May 8-9th in Washington, DC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Translate

  1. Bart Willemsen's avatar

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

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

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

  5. Lewis Kennebrew's avatar

    Jos, as usual, you've provided a buffet of "food for thought". Where do you see AI being trained by a…