PLM and Blockers (still actual)

July 30, 2023 in Blocking change, Change, PLM | Tags: , | Leave a comment

Today I read Rhiannon Gallagherer’s LinkedIn post: If Murray Isn’t Happy, No One Is Happy: Value Your Social Nodes. The story reminded me of a complementary blog post I wrote in 2014, although with a small different perspective.

After reviewing my post, I discovered that nine years later, we are still having the same challenges of how to involve people in a business transformation.

People are the most important assets companies claim, but where do they focus their spending and efforts?

Probably more on building the ideal processes and having the best IT solution.

Organisational Change Management is not in their comfort zone. People like Rhiannon Gallagher, but also in my direct network, the team from Share PLM, are focusing on this blind spot.  Don’t forget this part of your digital transformation efforts.

And just for fun, there rest of the post below is the article from  2014. At that time, I was not yet focusing on digital transformation in the PLM domain. That started end of 2014 – the beginning of 2015.

PLM and Blockers
(read it with 2014 in mind – where were you?)

In the past month (April 2014), I had several discussions related to the complexity of PLM.

  • Why is PLM conceived as complex?
  • Why is it hard to sell PLM internally into an organization?
  • Or, to phrase it differently: “What makes PLM so difficult for normal human beings. As conceptually it is not so complex”

(2023 addition: PLM is complex (and we have to accept it?) )

 

So what makes it complex? What is behind PLM?

ConcurrentEngineeringThe main concept behind PLM is that people need to share data. It can be around a project, a product, or a plant through the whole lifecycle. In particular, during the early lifecycle phases, there is a lot of information that is not yet 100 percent mature.

You could decide to wait till everything is mature before sharing it with others (the classical sequential manner). However, the chances of doing it right the first time are low. Several iterations between disciplines will be required before the data is approved.

The more and more a company works sequentially, the higher the costs of changes and the longer the time to market. Due to the rigidness of this sequential approach, it becomes difficult to respond rapidly to changing customer or market demands.

Therefore, in theory (and it is not only a PLM theory), concurrent engineering should reduce the number of iterations and the total time to market by working in parallel on not yet approved data.

 

plmPLM goes further. It is about the sharing of data, and as it originally started in the early phases of the product lifecycle, the concept of PLM was considered something related to engineering. And to be fair, most of the PLM (CAD-related) vendors have a high focus on the early stages of the lifecycle and have strengthened this idea.

However, sharing can go much further, e.g., early involvement of suppliers (still engineering) or downstream support for after-sales/services (the new acronym  SLM – Service Lifecycle Management).

In my recent (2014) blog posts, I discussed the concepts of SLM and the required data model for that.

 

Anticipated sharing

The complexity lies in the word “sharing”. What does sharing mean for an organization, where historically, every person was awarded for their knowledge instead of being awarded for sharing and spreading knowledge. Guarding your knowledge was job protection.

Many so-called PLM implementations have failed to reach the sharing target as the implementation focus was on storing data per discipline and not necessarily storing data to become shareable and used by others. This is a huge difference.

(2023 addition: At that time, all PLM systems were Systems of Record)

PLM binSome famous (ERP) vendors claim if you store everything in their system, you have a “single version of the truth”.

Sounds attractive. However, my garbage bin at home is also a place where everything ends up in a single place, but a garbage bin has not been designed for sharing. Another person has no clue or time to analyze what is inside.

Even data stored in the same system can be hidden from others as the way to find data is not anticipated.

 

Data sharing instead of document deliverables

The complexity of PLM is that data should be created and shared in a matter not necessarily in the most efficient manner for a single purpose. With some extra effort, you can make the information usable and searchable for others. Typical examples are drawings and document management, where the whole process for a person is focused on delivering a specific document on time. Ok, for that purpose, but this document becomes a legacy for the long term as you need to know (or remember) what is inside the document.

doc2dataA logical implication of data sharing is that, instead of managing documents, organizations start to collect and share data elements (a 3D model, functional properties, requirements, physical properties, logistical properties, etc.). Data can be connected and restructured easily through reports and dashboards, therefore, providing specific views for different roles in the organization. Sharing has become possible, and it can be done online. Nobody needed to consolidate and extract data from documents (Excels ?)

(2023 addition: The data-driven PLM infrastructure talking about datasets)

This does not fit older generations and departmental-managed business units that are rewarded only for their individual efficiency.

Here is an extract of a LinkedIn discussion from 2014, where the two extremes are visible. Unfortunately (or perhaps good), LinkedIn does not keep everything online. There is already so much “dark data” on the internet.

Joe stating:

“The sad thing about PLM is that only PLM experts can understand it! It seems to be a very tight knit club with very little influence from any outside sources.
I think PLM should be dumped. It seems to me that computerizing engineering documentation is relatively easy process. I really think it has been over complicated. Of course we need to get the CAD vendors out of the way. Yes it was an obvious solution, but if anyone took the time to look down the road they would see that they were destroying a well established standard that were so cost effective and simple. But it seems that there is no money in simple”

And at the other side, Kais stated:

“If we want to be able to use state-of-the art technology to support the whole enterprise, and not just engineering, and through-life; then product information, in its totality, must be readily accessible and usable at all times and not locked in any perishable CAD, ERP or other systems. The Data Centric Approach that we introduced in the Datamation PLM Model is built on these concepts”

Readers from my blog will understand I am very much aligned with Kais, and PLM guys have a hard time convincing Joe of the benefits of PLM (I did not try).

 

Making the change happen

blockerBesides this LinkedIn discussion, I had discussions with several companies where my audience understood the data-centric approach. It was nice to be in the room together, sharing ideas of what would be possible. However, the outside world is hard to convince, and here the challenge is organizational change management. Who will support you and who will work against you?.

BLOCKERS: I read an interesting article in IndustryWeek from John Dyer with the title: What Motivates Blockers to Resist Change?

John describes the various types of blockers, and when reading the article combined with my PLM twisted brain, I understood again that this is one of the reasons why PLM is perceived as complex – you need to change, and there are blockers:

Blocker (noun) – Someone who purposefully opposes any change (improvement) to a process for personal reasons

“Blockers” can occupy any position in a company. They can be any age, gender, education level or pay rate. We tend to think of blockers as older, more experienced workers who have been with the company for a long time, and they don’t want to consider any other way to do things. While that may be true in some cases, don’t be surprised to find blockers who are young, well-educated and fairly new to the company.”

The problem with blockers

The combination of business change and the existence of blockers is one of the biggest risks for companies to go through a business transformation. By the way, this is not only related to PLM; it is related to any required change in business.

Some examples:

imageA company I worked with was eager to study its path to the future, which required more global collaboration, a competitive business model and a more customer-centric approach. After a long evaluation phase, they decided they needed PLM, which was new for most of the people in the company. Although the project team was enthusiastic, they were not able to pass the blockers for a  change – so no PLM. Ironically enough, they lost a significant part of their business to companies that have implemented PLM. Defending the past is not a guarantee for the future.

A second example is Nokia. Nokia was famous for the ways they were able to transform their business in the past. How come they did not see the smartphone and touch screens upcoming? Apparently, based on several articles presented recently, it was Nokia´s internal culture and superior feeling that they were dominating the market that made it impossible to switch. The technology was known, and the concepts were there; however, the (middle) management was full of blockers.

Two examples where blockers had a huge impact on the company.

Conclusion:

Staying in business and remaining competitive is crucial for companies. In particular, the changes that currently happen require people to work differently in order to stay competitive. Documents will become reports generated from data. People handling and collecting documents to generate new documents will become obsolete as a modern data-centric approach makes them redundant. Keeping the old processes might destroy a company. This should convince the blockers to give up.

future exit

Stop the POC start the MVP

July 10, 2023 in Blocking change, Change, Competitiveness, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Education, Innovation, Minimum Viable Product, Observations, PLM, Proof of Concept | Tags: , , , , , | 1 comment

In the past few weeks, together with Share PLM, we recorded and prepared a few podcasts to be published soon. As you might have noticed, for Season 2, our target is to discuss the human side of PLM and PLM best practices and less the technology side.  Meaning:

  • How to align and motivate people around a PLM initiative?
  • What are the best practices when running a PLM initiative?
  • What are the crucial skills you need to have as a PLM lead?

And as there are always many success stories to learn on the internet, we also challenged our guests to share the moments where they got experienced.

As the famous quote says:

Experience is what you get when you don’t get what you expect!

We recently published our with Antonio Casaschi from Assa Abloy, a Swedish company you might have never noticed, although their products and services are a part of your daily life.

It was a discussion to my heart. We discussed the various aspects of PLM. What makes a person a PLM professional? And if you have no time to listen for these 35 minutes, read and scan the recording transcript on the transcription tab.

At 0:24:00, Antonio mentioned the concept of Proof of Concept as he had good experiences with them in the past. The remark triggered me to share some observations that a Proof of Concept (POC) is an old-fashioned way to drive change within organizations. Not discussed in this podcast but based on my experience, companies have been using the Proof Of Concepts to win time, as they were afraid to make a decision.

 

A POC to gain time?

 Company A

When working with a well-known company in 2014, I learned they were planning approximately ten POC per year to explore new ways of working or new technologies. As it was a POC based on an annual time scheme, the evaluation at the end of the year was often very discouraging.

Most of the time, the conclusion was: “Interesting, we should explore this further” /“What are the next POCs for the upcoming year?”

There was no commitment to follow-up; it was more of a learning exercise not connected to any follow-up.

Company B

During one of the PDT events, a company presented that two years POC with the three leading PLM vendors, exploring supplier collaboration. I understood the PLM vendors had invested much time and resources to support this POC, expecting a big deal. However, the team mentioned it was an interesting exercise, and they learned a lot about supplier collaboration.

And nothing happened afterward ………

In 2019

At the 2019 Product Innovation Conference in London, when discussing Digital Transformation within the PLM domain, I shared in my conclusion that the POC was mainly a waste of time as it does not push you to transform; it is an option to win time but is uncommitted.

My main reason for not pushing a POC is that it is more of a limited feasibility study.

  • Often to push people and processes into the technical capabilities of the systems used. A focus starting from technology is the opposite of what I have been pushing for longer: First, focus on the value stream – people and processes- and then study which tools and technologies support these demands.
  • Second, the POC approach often blocks innovation as the incumbent system providers will claim the desired capabilities will come (soon) within their systems—a safe bet.

 

The Minimum Viable Product approach (MVP)

With the awareness that we need to work differently and benefit from digital capabilities also came the term Minimum Viable Product or MVP.

The abbreviation MVP is not to be confused with the minimum valuable products or most valuable players.

There are two significant differences with the POC approach:

  • You admit the solution does not exist anywhere – so it cannot be purchased or copied.
  • You commit to the fact that this new approach will be the right direction to take and agree that a perfect fit solution is not blocking you from starting for real.

These two differences highlight the main challenges of digital transformation in the PLM domain. Digital Transformation is a learning process – it takes time for organizations to acquire and master the needed skills. And secondly, it cannot be a big bang, and I have often referred to the 2017 article from McKinsey: Toward an integrated technology operating model. Image below.

We will soon hear more about digital transformation within the PLM domain during the next episode of our SharePLM podcast. We spoke with Yousef Hooshmand, currently working for NIO, a Chinese multinational automobile manufacturer specializing in designing and developing electric vehicles, as their PLM data lead.

You might have discovered Yousef earlier when he published his paper: “From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and Data Mesh”. It is highly recommended that to read the paper if you are interested in a potential PLM future infrastructure. I wrote about this whitepaper in 2022: A new PLM paradigm discussing the upcoming Systems of Engagement on top of a Systems or Record infrastructure.

To align our terminology with Yousef’s wording, his domains align with the Systems of Engagement definition.

As we discovered and discussed with Yousef, technology is not the blocking issue to start. You must understand the target infrastructure well and where each domain’s activities fit. Yousef mentions that there is enough literature about this topic, and I can refer to the SAAB conference paper: Genesis -an Architectural Pattern for Federated PLM.

For a less academic impression, read my blog post, The week after PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe 2022, where I share the highlights of Erik Herzog’s presentation: Heterogeneous and Federated PLM – is it feasible?

There is much to learn and discover which standards will be relevant, as both Yousef and Erik mention the importance of standards.

The podcast with Yousef (soon to be found HERE) was not so much about organizational change management and people.

However, Yousef mentioned the most crucial success factor for the transformation project he supported at Daimler. It was C-level support, trust and understanding of the approach, knowing it will be many years, an unavoidable journey if you want to remain competitive.

 

And with the journey aspect comes the importance of the Minimal Viable Product. You are starting a journey with an end goal in mind (top-of-the-mountain), and step by step (from base camp to base camp), people will be better covered in their day-to-day activities thanks to digitization.

A POC would not help you make the journey; perhaps a small POC would understand what it takes to cross a barrier.

 

Conclusion

The concept of POCs is outdated in a fast-changing environment where technology is not necessary the blocking issue. Developing practices, new architectures and using the best-fit standards is the future. Embrace the Minimal Viable Product approach. Are you?

 

PLM is complex (and we have to accept it?)

June 25, 2023 in Configuration Management, Data centric, Education, PLM | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two weeks ago, I shared my post: Modern PLM is (too) complex on LinkedIn, and apparently, it was a topic that touched many readers. Almost a hundred likes, fifty comments and six shares. Not the usual thing you would expect from a PLM blog post.

In addition, the article led to offline discussions with peers, giving me an even better understanding of what people think. Here is a summary of the various talks.

 

What is PLM?

In particular, since the inception of Product Lifecycle Management, software vendors have battled with the various PLM definitions.

Initially, PLM was considered an engineering tool for product development, with an extensive potential set of capabilities supported by PowerPoint. Most companies actually implemented a collaborative PDM system at that time and named it PLM.

Was PLM really understood? Look at the infamous Autodesk CEO Carl Bass’s anti-PLM rap from 2007. Next, in 2012, Autodesk introduced its PLM solution called Autodesk PLM 360 as one of the first cloud solutions.

Only with growing connectivity and enterprise information sharing did the definition of PLM start to change.

PLM became a product information backbone serving downstream deployment with product data – the traditional Teamcenter, Windchill and ENOVIA implementations are typical examples of this phase.

With a digitization effort taking place in the non-PLM domain, connecting product development, design and delivery data to a company’s digital business became necessary. You could say, and this is the CIMdata definition:

PLM is a strategic business approach that applies a consistent set of business solutions that support the collaborative creation, management, dissemination, and use of product definition information. PLM supports the extended enterprise (customers, design and supply partners, etc.)

I agree with this definition; perhaps 80 % of our PLM community does. But how many times have we been trapped again in the same thinking: PLM is a system.

The most recent example is the post from Oleg Shilovitsky last week where he claims: Discover why OpenBOM reigns supreme in the world of PLM! 

Nothing wrong with that, as software vendors will always tweak definitions as they need marketing to make a profit, but PLM is not a system.

My main point is that PLM is a “vague” community label with many interpretations. Software vendors have the most significant marketing budget to push their unique definitions. However, also various practitioners in the field have their interpretations.

And maybe Martin Haket’s comment to the post says it all (partly quote):

I’m a bit late to this discussion, but in my opinion, the complexity is mainly due to the fact that the ownership of the processes and data models underlying PLM are not properly organized. ‘Everybody’ in the company is allowed to mix in the discussion and have their opinion; legacy drives departments to undesirable requirements leading to complex implementations.

My intermediate conclusion: Our legacy and lack of a single definition of PLM make it complex.

 

The PLM professional

On LinkedIn, there are approximately 14.000 PLM consultants in my first and second levels of connections. This number indicates that the label “PLM Consultant” has a specific recognition.

During my “PLM is complex” discussion, I noticed Roger Tempest’s Professional PLM White paper and started the dialogue with him.

Roger Tempest is one of the co-founders of the PLM Interest Group. He has been trying to create a baseline for a foundational PLM certification with several others. We discussed the challenges of getting the PLM Professional recognized as an essential business role. Can we certify the PLM professional the same way as a certified Configuration Manager or certified Project Manager?

I shared my thoughts with Roger, claiming that our discipline is too vague and diverse and that finding a common baseline is hard.

Therefore, we are curious about your opinion too. Please tell us in the comments to this post what you think about recognizing the PLM professional and what skills should be the minimum. What are the basics of a PLM professional?

In addition, I participated in some of the SharePLM podcast recordings with PLM experts from the field (follow us here). I raised the PLM professional question either during the podcast or during the preparation of the after-party. Also, there was no single unique answer.

So much is part of PLM: people (culture, skills), processes & data, tools & infrastructures (architectures, standards) combined with execution (waterfall/agile?)

My intermediate conclusion: The broadness of PLM makes it complex to have a common foundation.

 

More about complexity

PEOPLE: Let’s zoom in on the aspects of complexity. Starting from the People, Processes, Data and Tools discussion. The first thing mentioned is “the people,” organizations usually claim: “the most important assets in our organization are the people”.

However, people are usually the last dimension considered in business changes. Companies start with the tools, try to build the optimal processes and finally push the people into that framework by training, incentives or just force.

The reason for the last approach is that dealing with people is complex. People have their beliefs, their legacy and their motivation. And if people do not feel connected to the business (change), they will become an obstacle to change – look at the example below from my 2014 PI Apparel presentation:

To support the importance of people, I am excited to work with Share PLM and the Season 2 podcast series.

In these episodes, we talk with successful PLM experts about their lessons learned during PLM implementation. You will discover it is a learning process, and connecting to people in different cultures is essential. As it is a learning process, you will find it takes time and human skills to master this complexity.

Often human skills are called “soft skills”, but actually, they are “vital skills”!

 

PROCESSES: Regarding the processes part, this is another challenging topic. Often we try to simplify processes to make them workable (sounds like a good idea). With many seasoned PLM practitioners coming from the mechanical product development world, it is not a surprise that many proposed PLM processes are BOM-centric – building on PDM and ERP capabilities.

In my post: The rise and fall of the BOM? I started with this quote from Jan Bosch:

An excessive focus on the bill of materials leads to significant challenges for companies that are undergoing a digital transformation and adopting continuous value delivery. The lack of headroom, high coupling and versioning hell may easily cause an explosion of R&D expenditure over time.

Today’s organization and product complexity does not allow us to keep the processes simple to remain competitive. In that context, have a look at Erik Herzog’s comment on PLM complexity:

I believe a contributing factor to making PLM complex lies in our tendency to make too many simplifications. Do we understand a simple thing such as configuration change management in incremental development? At least in my organization, there is room for improvement.

In the comment, Erik also provided a link to his conference paper: Introducing the 4-Box Development Model describing the potential interaction between  Systems Engineering and Configuration Management. A topic that is too complex for your current company; however, it illustrates that you cannot generalize and simplify PLM overall.

In addition to Erik’s comments, I want to mention again that we can change our business processes thanks to a modern, connected, data-driven infrastructure. From coordinated to connected working with a mix of Systems of Engagement (new) and Systems of Record (traditional). There are no solid best practices yet, but the real PLM geeks are becoming visible.

TOOLS & DATA: When discussing the future: From Coordinated to Connected, there has always been a discussion about the legacy.

Should we migrate the legacy data and systems and replace them with new tools and data models? Or are there other options? The interaction of tools and data is often the domain of Enterprise Solution Architects. The Solution Architect’s role becomes increasingly important in a modern, data-driven company, and several are pretty active in PLM, if you know how to find them, because they are not in the mainstream of PLM.

This week we made a SharePLM podcast recording with Yousef Hooshmand. I wrote about his paper “From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and Data Mesh” last year as Yousef describes the complex process, that time working at Daimler, to slowly replace old legacy infrastructure with a new modern user/role-centric data-driven infrastructure.

Watch out for this recording to be published soon as Yousef shares various provoking experiences. Not to provoke our community but to create the awareness that a transformation is possible when you have the right long-term vision, strategy and C-level support.

 

Fighting complexity

And then there are people trying to fight complexity by describing their best practices. There was the launch of Martijn Dullaart’s book: The essential guide to Part Re-Identification. Martijn mentioned that he took the time to write his book based on all our PLM and CM communities interactions instead of writing a series of blog posts, which you still find on his MDUX site. I plan to read this book too this summer and hopefully come back with Martijn and others in a discussion about the book.

Note: We have CM people involved in many of the PLM discussions. I think they are fighting similar complexity like others in the PLM domain. However, they have the benefit that their role: Configuration Manager, is recognized and supported by a commercial certification organization( the Institute of Process Excellence – IpX ).

While completing this post, I read this article from Oleg Shilovitsky: PLM User Groups and Communities. At first glance, you might think that PLM User Groups and Communities might be the solution to address the complexity.

And I think they do; there are within most PLM vendors orchestrated User Groups and Communities. Depending on your tool vendor, you will find like-minded people supported by vendor experts. Are they reducing the complexity? Probably not, as they are at the end of the People, Processes, Data and Tools discussion. You are already working within a specific boundary.

Based on my experience as a core PLM Global Green Alliance member, I think PLM-neutral communities are not viable. There is very little interaction in this community, with currently 686 members, although the topics are very actual. Yes, people want to consume and learn, but making time available to share is, unfortunately, impossible when not financially motivated. Sharing opinions, yes, but working on topics: we are too busy.

 

Conclusion

The term PLM seems adequate to identify a group with a common interest (and skills?) Due to the broad scope and aspects – it is impossible to create a standard job description for the PLM professional, and we must learn to live with that- see my arguments.

What do you think?

Are you ready to discuss the complexity of PLM with your peers

Modern PLM is (too) complex

June 5, 2023 in EBOM, Education, Knowledge Management, Observations, PLM, Standards | Tags: , , , , | 3 comments

In the past two weeks, I had several discussions with peers in the PLM domain about their experiences.

Some of them I met after a long time again face-to-face at the LiveWorx 2023 event. See my review of the event here: The Weekend after LiveWorx 2023.

And there were several interactions on LinkedIn, leading to a more extended discussion thread (an example of a digital thread ?) or a Zoom discussion (a so-called 2D conversation).

To complete the story, I also participated in two PLM podcasts from Share PLM, where we interviewed Johan Mikkelä  (currently working at FLSmidth)  and, in the second episode Issam Darraj (presently working at ABB) about their PLM experiences. Less a discussion, more a dialogue, trying to grasp the non-documented aspects of PLM. We are looking for your feedback on these podcasts too.

All these discussions led to a reconfirmation that if you are a PLM practitioner, you need a broad skillset to address the business needs, translate them into people and process activities relevant to the industry and ultimately implement the proper collection of tools.

As a sneaky preview for the podcast sessions, we asked both Johan and Issam about the importance of the tools. I will not disclose their answers here; you have to listen.

Let’s look at some of the discussions.

NOTE: Just before pushing the Publish button, Oleg Shilovitsky published this blog article PLM Project Failures and Unstoppable PLM Playbook. I will comment on his points at the end of this post. It is all part of the extensive discussion.

 

PLM, LinkedIn and complexity

The most popular discussions on LinkedIn are often related to the various types of Bills of Materials (eBOM, mBOM, sBOM), Part numbering schemes (intelligent or not), version and revision management and the famous FFF discussions.

This post: PLM and Configuration Management Best Practices: Working with Revisions, from Andreas Lindenthal, was a recent example that triggered others to react.

I had some offline discussions on this topic last week, and I noticed Frédéric Zeller wrote his post with the title PLM, LinkedIn and complexity, starting his post with (quote):

I am stunned by the average level of posts on the PLM on LinkedIn.

I’m sorry, but in 2023 :

  • Part Number management (significant, non-significant) should no longer be a problem.
  • Revision management should no longer be a question.
  • Configuration management theory should no longer be a question.
  • Notions of EBOMs, MBOMs … should no longer be a question.

So why are there still problems on these topics?

You can see from the at least 40+ comments that this statement created a lot of reactions, including mine. Apparently, these topics are touching many people worldwide, and there is no simple, single answer to each of these topics. And there are so many other topics relevant to PLM.

Talking later with Frederic for one hour in a Zoom session, we discussed the importance of the right PLM data model.

I also wrote a series about the (traditional) PLM data model: The importance of a (PLM) data model.

Frederic is more of a PLM architect; we even discussed the wording related to the EBOM and the MBOM. A topic that I feel comfortable discussing after many years of experience seeing the attempts that failed and the dreams people had. And this was only one aspect of PLM.

You also find the discussion related to a PLM certification in the same thread. How would you certify a person as a PLM expert?

There are so many dimensions to PLM. Even more important, the PLM from 10-15 years ago (more of a system discussion) is no longer the PLM nowadays (a strategy and an infrastructure) –

This is a crucial difference. Learning to use a PLM tool and implement it is not the same as building a PLM strategy for your company. It is Tools, Process, People versus Process, People, Tools and Data.

 

Time for Methodology workshops?

I recently discussed with several peers what we could do to assist people looking for best practices discussion and lessons learned. There is a need, but how to organize them as we cannot expect this to be voluntary work.

In the past, I suggested MarketKey, the organizer of the PI DX events,  extend its theme workshops. For example, instead of a 45-min Focus group with a short introduction to a theme (e.g., eBOM-mBOM, PLM-ERP interfaces), make these sessions last at least half a day and be independent of the PLM vendors.

Apparently, it did not fit in the PI DX programming; half a day would potentially stretch the duration of the conference and more and more, we see two days of meetings as the maximum. Longer becomes difficult to justify even if the content might have high value for the participants.

I observed a similar situation last year in combination with the PLM roadmap/PDT Europe conference in Gothenburg. Here we had a half-day workshop before the conference led by Erik Herzog(SAAB Aeronautics)/ Judith Crockford (Europstep) to discuss concepts related to federated PLM – read more in this post: The week after PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe 2022.

It reminded me of an MDM workshop before the 2015 Event, led by Marc Halpern from Gartner. Unfortunately, the federated PLM discussion remained a pretty Swedish initiative, and the follow-up did not reach a wider audience.

And then there are the Aerospace and Defense PLM action groups that discuss moderated by CIMdata. It is great that they published their findings (look here), although the best lessons learned are during the workshops.

However, I also believe the A&D industry cannot be compared to a mid-market machinery manufacturing company. Therefore, it is helpful for a smaller audience only.

And here, I inserted a paragraph dedicated to Oleg’s recent post, PLM Project Failures and Unstoppable PLM Playbook – starting with a quote:

How to learn to implement PLM? I wrote about it in my earlier article – PLM playbook: how to learn about PLM? While I’m still happy to share my knowledge and experience, I think there is a bigger need in helping manufacturing companies and, especially PLM professionals, with the methodology of how to achieve the right goal when implementing PLM. Which made me think about the Unstoppable PLM playbook ©.

I found a similar passion for helping companies to adopt PLM while talking to Helena Gutierrez. Over many conversations during the last few months, we talked about how to help manufacturing companies with PLM adoption. The unstoppable PLM playbook is still a work in progress, but we want to start talking about it to get your feedback and start the conversation. 

It is an excellent confirmation of the fact that there is a need for education and that the education related to PLM on the Internet is not good enough.

As a former teacher in Physics, I do not believe in the Unstoppable PLM Playbook, even if it is a branded name. Many books are written by specific authors, giving their perspectives based on their (academic) knowledge.

Are they useful? I believe only in the context of a classroom discussion where the applicability can be discussed,

Therefore my questions to vendor-neutral global players, like CIMdata, Eurostep, Prostep, SharePLM, TCS and others, are you willing to pick up this request? Or are there other entities that I missed? Please leave your thoughts in the comments. I will be happy to assist in organizing them.

There are many more future topics to discuss and document too.

  • What about the potential split of a PLM infrastructure between Systems of Record & Systems of Engagement?
  • What about the Digital Thread, a more and more accepted theme in discussions, but what is the standard definition?
  • Is it traceability as some vendors promote it, or is it the continuity of data, direct usable in various contexts – the DevOps approach?

 

Who likes to discuss methodology?

When asking myself this question, I see the analogy with standards. So let’s look at the various players in the PLM domain – sorry for the immense generalization.

Strategic consultants: standards are essential, but spare me the details.

Vendors: standards are limiting the unique capabilities of my products

Implementers: two types – Those who understand and use standards as they see the long-term benefits. Those who avoid standards as it introduces complexity.

Companies: they love standards if they can be implemented seamlessly.

Universities: they love to explore standards and help to set the standards even if they are not scalable

Just replace standards with methodology, and you see the analogy.

 

We like to discuss the methodology.

As I mentioned in the introduction, I started to work with Share PLM on a series of podcasts where we interview PLM experts in the field that have experience with the people, the process, the tools and the data side. Through these interviews, you will realize PLM is complex and has become even more complicated when you consider PLM a strategy instead of a tool.

We hope these podcasts might be a starting point for further discussion – either through direct interactions or through contributions to the podcast. If you have PLM experts in your network that can explain the complexity of PLM from various angles and have the experience. Please let us know – it is time to share.

 

Conclusion

By switching gears, I noticed that PLM has become complex. Too complex for a single person to master. With an aging traditional PLM workforce (like me), it is time to consolidate the best practices of the past and discuss the best practices for the future. There are no simple answers, as every industry is different. Help us to energize the PLM community – your thoughts/contributions?

Announcing PLM Road Map & PDT EMEA 2023

 

The weekend after LiveWorx 2023

May 22, 2023 in Change, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Green Development, Green Energy, Innovation, Life Cycle Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Last week I enjoyed visiting LiveWorx 2023 on behalf of the PLM Global Green Alliance. PTC had invited us to understand their sustainability ambitions and meet with the relevant people from PTC, partners, customers and several of my analyst friends. It felt like a reunion.

In addition, I used the opportunity to understand better their Velocity SaaS offering with OnShape and Arena. The almost 4-days event, with approximately 5000 attendees, was massive and well-organized.

So many people were excited that this was again an in-person event after four years.

With PTC’s broad product portfolio, you could easily have a full agenda for the whole event, depending on your interests.

I was personally motivated that I had a relatively full schedule focusing purely on Sustainability, leaving all these other beautiful end-to-end concepts for another time.

Here are some of my observations

Jim Heppelman’s keynote

The primary presentation of such an event is the keynote from PTC’s CEO. This session allows you to understand the company’s key focus areas.

My takeaways:

  • Need for Speed: Software-driven innovation, or as Jim said, Software is eating the BOM, reminding me of my recent blog post: The Rise and Fall of the BOM. Here Jim was referring to the integration with ALM (CodeBeamer) and IoT to have full traceability of products. However, including Software also requires agile ways of working.
  • Need for Speed: Agile ways of working – the OnShape and Arena offerings are examples of agile working methods. A SaaS solution is easy to extend with suppliers or other stakeholders. PTC calls this their Velocity offering, typical Systems of Engagement, and I spoke later with people working on this topic. More in the future.
  • Need for Speed: Model-based digital continuity – a theme I have discussed in my blog post too. Here Jim explains the interaction between Windchill and ServiceMax, both Systems of Record for product definition and Operation.
  • Environmental Sustainability: introducing Catherine Kniker, PTC’s Chief Strategy and Sustainability Officer, announcing that PTC has committed to Science Based Targets, pledging near-term emissions reductions and long-term net-zero targets – see image below and more on Sustainability in the next section.
  • A further investment in a SaaS architecture, announcing CREO+ as a SaaS solution supporting dynamic multi-user collaboration (a System of Engagement)
  • A further investment in the partnership with Ansys fits the needs of a model-based future where modeling and simulation go hand in hand.

You can watch the full session  Path to the Future: Products in the Age of Transformation here.

 

Sustainability

The PGGA spoke with Dave Duncan and James Norman last year about PTC’s sustainability initiatives. Remember: PLM and Sustainability: talking with PTC. Therefore, Klaus Brettschneider and I were happy to meet Dave and James in person just before the event and align on understanding what’s coming at PTC.

We agreed there is no “sustainability super app”; it is more about providing an open, digital infrastructure to connect data sources at any time of the product lifecycle, supporting decision-making and analysis. It is all about reliable data.

 

Product Sustainability 101

On Tuesday, Dave Duncan gave a great introductory session, Product Sustainability 101, addressing Business Drivers and Technical Opportunities. Dave started by explaining the business context aiming at greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction based on science-based targets, describing the content of Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions.

The image above, which came back in several presentations later that week, nicely describes the mapping of lifecycle decisions and operations in the context of the GHG protocol.

 

Design for Sustainability (DfS)

On Wednesday, I started with a session moderated by James Norman titled Design for Sustainability: Harnessing Innovation for a Resilient Future. The panel consisted of Neil D’Souza (CEO Makersite), Tim Greiner (MD Pure Strategies), Francois Lamy (SVP Product Management PTC) and Asheen Phansey (Director ESG & Sustainability at PagerDuty). You can find the topic discussed below:

Some of the notes I took:

  • No specific PLM modules are needed, LCA needs to become an additional practice for companies, and they rely on a connected infrastructure.
  • Where to start? First, understand the current baseline based on data collection – what is your environmental impact? Next, decide where to start
  • The importance of Design for Service – many companies design products for easy delivery, not for service. Being able to service products better will extend their lifetime, therefore reducing their environmental impact (manufacturing/decommissioning)
  • There Is a value chain for carbon data. In addition, suppliers significantly impact reaching net zero, as many OEMs have an Assembly To Order process, and most of the emissions are done during part manufacturing.

 

DfS: an example from Cummins

Next, on Wednesday, I attended the session from David Genter from Cummins, who presented their Design for Sustainability (DfS) project.

Dave started by sharing their 2030 sustainability goals:

  • On Facilities and  Operations: A reduction of 50 % of GHG emissions, reducing water usage by 30 %, reducing waste by 25 % and reducing organic compound emissions by 50%
  • Reducing Scope 3 emissions for new products by 25%
  • In general, reducing Scope 3 emissions by 55M metric tons.

The benefits for products were documented using a standardized scorecard (example below) to ensure the benefits are real and not based on wishful thinking.

Many motivated people wanted to participate in the project, and the ultimate result demonstrated that DfS has both business value for Cummins and the environment.

The project has been very well described in this whitepaper: How Cummins Made Changes to Optimize Product Designs for the Environment – a recommended case study to read.

 

Tangible Strategies for Improving Product Sustainability

The session was a dialogue between Catherine Kniker and Dave Duncan, discussing the strategies to move forward with Sustainability.

They reiterated the three areas where we as a PLM community can improve: Material choice and usage, Addressing Energy Emissions and Reducing Waste. And it is worth addressing them all, as you can see below – it is not only about carbon reduction.

It was an informative dialogue going through the different aspects of where we, as an engineering/ PLM community, can contribute. You can watch their full dialog here: Tangible Strategies for Improving Product Sustainability.

 

Conclusion

It was encouraging to see that at such an event as LiveWorx, you could learn about Sustainability and discuss Sustainability with the audience and PTC partners. And as I mentioned before, we need to learn to measure (data-driven / reliable data), and we need to be able to work in a connected infrastructure (digital thread) to allow design, simulation, validation and feedback to go hand in hand. It requires adapting a business strategy, not just a tactical solution. With the PLM Global Green Alliance, we are looking forward to following up on these.

NOTE: PTC covered the expenses associated with my participation in this event but did not in any way influence the content of this post – I made my tour fully independent through the conference and got encouraged by all the conversations I had.

 

The Supplier Dilemma

May 15, 2023 in Digital Enterprise, Knowledge Management, MBD, MBE, PLM, Supplier Collaboration, Supply Chain, Sustainability | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Imagine you are a supplier working for several customers, such as big OEMs or smaller companies. In Dec 2020, I wrote about PLM and the Supply Chain because it was an underexposed topic in many companies. Suppliers need their own PLM and IP protection and work as efficiently as possible with their customers, often the OEMs.

Most PLM implementations always start by creating the ideal internal collaboration between functions in the enterprise. Historically starting with R&D and Engineering, next expanding to Manufacturing, Services and Marketing. Most of the time in this logical order.

In these implementations, people are not paying much attention to the total value chain, customers and suppliers. And that was one of the interesting findings at that time, supported by surveys from Gartner and McKinsey:

  • Gartner: Companies reported improvements in the accuracy of product data and product development as the main benefit of their PLM implementation. They did not see so much of a reduced time to market or reduced product development costs. After analysis, Gartner believes the real issue is related to collaboration processes and supply chain practices. Here the lead times did not change, nor did the number of changes.
  • McKinsey: In their article, The Case for Digital Reinvention, digital supply chains were mentioned as the area with the potential highest ROI; however, as the image shows below, it was the area with the lowest investment at that time.

In 2020 we were in the middle of broken supply chains and wishful thinking related to digital transformation, all due to COVID-19.

Meanwhile, the further digitization in PLM (systems of engagement) and the new topic, Sustainability of the supply chain, became visible.

Therefore it is time to make a status again, also driven by discussions in the past few weeks.

 

The old “connected” approach (loose-loose).

A preferred way for OEMs in the past was to have the Supplier or partner directly work in their PLM environment. The OEM could keep control of the product development process and the incremental maturity of the BOM, where the Supplier could connect their part data and designs to the OEM environment. T

The advantage for the OEM is clear – direct visibility of the supplier data when available. The benefit for the Supplier could also be immediate visibility of the broader context of the part they are responsible for.

However, the disadvantages for a supplier are more significant. Working in the OEM environment exposes all your IP and hinders knowledge capitalization from the Supplier. Not a big thing for perhaps a tier 3 supplier; however, the more advanced the products from the Supplier are, the higher the need to have its own PLM environment.

Therefore the old connected approach is a loose-loose relationship in particular for the Supplier and even for the OEM (having less knowledgeable suppliers)

 

The modern “connected” approach (wins t.b.d.)

In this situation, the target infrastructure is a digital infrastructure, where datasets are connected in real-time, providing the various stakeholders in engagement access to a filtered set of data relevant to their roles.

In my terminology, I refer to them as Systems of Engagement, as the target is that all stakeholders work in this environment.

The counterpart of Systems of Engagement is the Systems of Record, which provides a product baseline, manufacturing baseline, and configuration baseline of information consumed by other disciplines.

These baselines are often called Bills of Information, and the traditional PLM system has been designed as a System of Record. Major Bills of Information are the eBOM, the mBOM and sometimes people talk about the sBOM(service BOM).

Typical examples of Systems of Engagement I have seen in alphabetical order are:

  • Arena Solutions has a long-term experience in BOM collaboration between engineering teams, suppliers and contract manufacturers.
  • CATENA-X might be a strange player in this list, as CATENA-X is more a German Automotive consortium targeting digital collaboration between stakeholders, ensuring security and IP protection.
  • Colab is a provider of cloud-based collaboration software allowing design teams and suppliers to work in real time together.
  • OnShape – a cloud-based collaborative product design environment for dispersed engineering teams and partners.
  • OpenBOM – a SaaS solution focusing on BOM collaboration connected to various CAD systems along with design teams and their connected suppliers

These are some of the Systems of Engagement I am aware of. They focus on specific value streams that can improve the targeted time to market and product introduction efficiency. In companies with no extensive additional PLM infrastructure, they can become crucial systems of engagement.

The main challenge for these systems of engagement is how they will connect to traditional Systems or Records – the classical PLM systems that we know in the market (Aras, Dassault, PTC, Siemens).

Image on the left from a presentation done by Eric Herzog from SAAB at last year’s CIMdata/PDT conference.

You can read more about this here.

When establishing a mix of Systems of Engagement and Systems of Record in your organization digitally connected, we will see overall benefits. My earlier thoughts, in general, are here: Time to split PLM?

The almost Connected approach

As I mentioned, in most companies, it is already challenging to manage their internal System of Record, which is needed for current operations and the traceability of information. In addition, most of the data stored in these systems is document-driven, not designed for real-time collaboration. So how would these companies collaborate with their suppliers?

The Model-Based Enterprise

In the bigger image below, I am referring to an image published by Jennifer Herron from her book Re-use Your CAD, where she describes the various stages of interaction between engineering, manufacturing and the extended enterprise.

Her mission is to promote and educate organizations in moving to a Model-Based Definition and, in the long term, to a Model-Base Enterprise.

The ultimate target of information exchange in this diagram is that the OEM and the Supplier are separate entities. However, they can exchange Digital Product Definition Packages and TDPs over the web (electronically). In this exchange, we have a mix of systems of engagement and systems of record on the OEM and Supplier sides.

Depending on the type of industry, in my ecosystem of companies, many suppliers are still at level 2, dreaming or pushed to become level 3, illustrating there is a difficult job to do – learning new practices. And why would you move to the next level?

Every step can have significant benefits, as reported by companies that did this.

So what’s stopping your company from moving ahead? People, Processes, Skills, Work Pressure? It is one of the most common excuses: “We are too busy, no time to improve”.

A supply chain collaboration hub

On March 21, I discussed with  Magnus Färneland from Eurostep their cloud-based PLM collaboration hub, ShareAspace. You can read the interview here: PLM and Supply Chain Collaboration

I believe this concept can be compelling for a connected enterprise. The OEM and the Supplier share (or connect) only the data they want to share, preferably based on the PLCS data schema (ISO 10303-239).

In a primitive approach, this can be BOM structures with related files; however, it could become a real model-based connection hub in the advanced mode. “

Now you ask yourself why this solution is not booming.

In my opinion, there are several points to consider:

  • Who designs, operates and maintains the collaboration hub?
    It is likely not the suppliers, and when the OEM takes ownership, they might believe there is no need for the extra hub; just use the existing PLM infrastructure.
  • Could a third party find a niche market for this? Eurostep has already been working on this for many years, but adopting the concept seems higher in de BIM or Asset Management domains. Here the owner/operator sees the importance of a collaboration hub.

A final remark, we are still far from a connected enterprise; concepts like Catena-X and others need to become mature to serve as a foundation – there is a lot of technology out there -now we need the skilled people and tested practices to use the right technology and tune solutions concepts.

Sustainability demands a connected enterprise.

I focused on the Supplier dilemma this time because it is one of the crucial aspects of a circular economy and sustainable product development.

Only by using virtual models of the To-Be products/systems can we seriously optimize them. Virtual models and Digital Twins do not run on documents; they require accurate data from anywhere connected.

You can read more details in my post earlier this year: MBSE and Sustainability or look at the PLM and Sustainability recording on our PLM Global Green Alliance YouTube channel.

Conclusion

Due to various discussions I recently had in the field, it became clear that the topic of supplier integration in a best-connected manner is one of the most important topics to address in the near future. We cannot focus longer on our company as an isolated entity – value streams implemented in a connected manner become a must.

And now I am going to enjoy Liveworx in Boston, learning, discussing and understanding more about what PTC is doing and planning in the context of digital transformation and sustainability. More about that in my next post: The week(end) after Liveworx 2023 (to come)

15 years of blogging and switching gears

April 30, 2023 in Education, PLM, SmarTeam, Sustainability | Tags: , , , | 5 comments

This month it is exactly 15 years ago that I started my blog, a little bit nervous and insecure. Blogging had not reached mainstream yet, and how would people react to my shared experiences?

The main driver behind my blog in 2008 was to share field experiences when implementing PLM in the mid-market.

As a SmarTeam contractor working closely with Dassault and IBM PLM, I learned that implementing PLM (or PDM) is more than a technology issue.

Discussing implementations made me aware of the importance of the human side. Customers had huge expectations with such a flexible toolkit, and implementers made money by providing customization to any user request.
No discussion if it was needed, as the implementer always said: “Yes, we can (if you pay)”.

The parallel tree

And that’s where my mediation started. At a particular moment, the customer started to get annoyed of again another customization. The concept of a “parallel tree,” a sync between the 3D CAD structure and the BOM, was many times a point of discussion.

So many algorithms have been invented to convert a 3D CAD structure into a manufacturing BOM. Designing glue and paint in CAD as this way it would appear in the BOM.

The “exploded” data model

A result of customizations that ended up in failure were the ones with a crazy data model, too many detailed classes, and too many attributes per class.

Monsters were created by some well-willingly IT departments collecting all the user needs, however unworkable by the end users. See my 2015 post here: The Importance of a PLM data model

The BOM concepts

While concepts and best practices have become stable for traditional PLM, where we talk more about a Product Information backbone, there is still considerable debate about this type of implementation. The leading cause for the discussion is that companies often start from their systems and newly purchased systems and then try to push the people and processes into that environment.

For example, see this recent discussion we had with Oleg Shilovitsky (PLM, ERP, MES) and others on LinkedIn.

These were the days before we entered into digital transformation in the PLM domain, and starting from 2015, you can see in my blog posts the mission. Exploring what a digital enterprise would look like and what the role of PLM will be.

The Future

Some findings I can already share:

  • No PLM system can do it all – where historically, companies bought a PLM system; now, they have to define a PLM strategy where the data can flow (controlled) in any direction. The PLM strategy needs to be based on value streams of connected data between relevant stakeholders supported by systems of engagement. From System to Strategy.
  • Master Data Management and standardization of data models might still be a company’s internal activity (as the environment is stable). Still, to the outside world/domains, there is a need for flexible connections (standard flows / semantic web). From Rigid to Flexible.
  • The meaning of the BOM will change for coordinated structures towards an extract of a data-driven PLM environment, where the BOM mainly represents the hardware connected to software releases. Configuration management practices must also change (see Martijn – and the Rise and Fall of the BOM). From Placeholders to Baselines.
  • Digital Transformation in the PLM domain is not an evolution of the data. Legacy data has never been designed to be data-driven; migration is a mission impossible. Therefore there is a need to focus on a hybrid environment with two modes: enterprise backbone (System of Record) and product-centric infrastructure (Systems of Engagements). From Single Source of Truth to Authoritative Source of Truth.

 

Switching Gears

Next week I have reached the liable age for my Dutch pension, allowing me to switch gears.

Instead of driving in high-performance mode, I will start practicing driving in a touristic mode, moving from points of interest to other points of interest while caring for the environment.

Here are some of the topics to mention at this moment.

 

Reviving the Share PLM podcast

Together with the Share PLM team, we decided to revive their podcast as Season 2. I referred to their podcast last year in my PLM Holiday thoughts 2022 post.

The Share PLM team has always been the next level of what I started alone in 2008. Sharing and discussing PLM topics with interest on the human side, supporting organizational change through targeted e-learning deliverables based on the purpose of a PLM implementation. People (first), Processes (needed) and the Tools (how) – in this order.

In Season 2 of the podcast, we want to discuss with experienced PLM practitioners the various aspects of PLM – not only success stories you often hear at PLM conferences.

Experience is what you get when you do not get what you expect.

And PLM is a domain where experience with people, processes and tools counts.

Follow our podcast here, subscribe to it on your favorite platform and feel free to send us questions. Besides the longer interviews, we will also discuss common questions in separate recordings or as a structured part of the podcast.

Sustainability!

I noticed from my Sustainability related blog posts that they resonate less with my blogging audience. I am curious about the reason behind this.

Does it mean in our PLM community, Sustainability is still too vague and not addressed in the reader’s daily environment? Or is it because people do not see the relation to PLM and are more focused on carbon emissions, greenhouse gasses and the energy transition – a crucial part of the sustainable future that currently gets much attention?

I just discovered this week I just read this post: CEO priorities from 2019 until now: What has changed? As the end result shows below, sustainability has been ranked #7 in 2019, and after some ups and downs, it is still at priority level #7. This is worrying me as it illustrates that at the board level, not so much has changed, despite the increasing understanding of the environmental impact and the recent warnings from the climate. The warnings did not reach the boardrooms yet.

In addition, I will keep on exploring the relationship between PLM and Sustainability, and in that context, I am looking forward to my learnings and discussions at the upcoming PTC Liveworx event in Boston. Do I see yo there?

Here I hope to meet with their sustainability thought leaders and discuss plans to come up with concrete activities related to PLM and Sustainability.

Somehow it is similar to the relationship between Digital Transformation and the PLM domain. Although we talk already for over 10 years about the digitalization of the entire business; in the PLM domain, it has just started,

Awareness sessions

Companies have a considerable challenge translating a C-level vision into a successful business transformation supported by people active in the field.

Or on the opposite, highly motivated people in the organization see the opportunity to improve their current ways of working dramatically due to digitization.

However, they struggle with translating their deep understanding into messages and actions that are understood and supported by the executive management. In the past ten years, I have been active in various transformational engagements, serving as a “translator” between all stakeholders. I will continue this work as it is a unique way to coach companies, implementers and software vendors to understand each other.

Conclusions

Fifteen years of blogging has brought me a lot – constantly forcing yourself to explain what you observe around you and what it means for the PLM domain. My purpose in sharing these experiences with you in a non-academic matter has led to a great network of people and discussions. Some are very interactive, like Håkan Kårdén and Oleg Shilovitsky (the top two)  and others, in an indirect way, provide their feedback.

Switching gears will not affect the blogging and the network – It might even lead to deeper insights as the time to observe and enjoy will be longer.  

Keep your seatbelts fastened.

PLM and Sustainability: talking with CIMdata

April 10, 2023 in Circulair Economy, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Digital Twin, Green Development, Life Cycle Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment, Modularity, PLM, Sustainability | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

We are happy to start the year with the next PLM Global Green Alliances (PGGA) series round: PLM and Sustainability.

Last year we spoke mainly with the prominent PLM software editors (Aras, Autodesk, Dassault Systèmes, PTC, SAP) and Sustaira (Sustainability platform – Siemens partner).

This time we talked with Mark Reisig, Sustainability and Green Energy Practice Director & Executive Consultant from CIMdata. The good news is that discussing a PLM strategy and Sustainability is no longer a software discussion.

With CIMdata’s sustainability offering introduced last year, it becomes clear that the topic of sustainability reached a broader level than the tools.

 

CIMdata

CIMdata is well known in the PLM domain, focusing on Market Analysis,  Education, Research & Strategic Management Consulting, all related to PLM.

Last year, Mark joined CIMdata as Green Energy Practice Director & Executive Consultant. Listening to Mark, you will discover he has an exciting background, starting with the “Keeling Curve”, his early interest in oceanography and wind turbines, working with GE later in his career and many years active in the PLM domain.

Learn more from the 40 minutes discussion with Mark below.

You can download the slides shown during the recording HERE

 

What we have learned

  • CIMdata has been discussing and promoting a circular economy already for a long time. A sustainable future and a circular economy have been a theme in many of the PLM Roadmap & PDT conferences. It is a logical relation as implementing a circular strategy depends significantly on the product design approach.
  • CIMdata also combines Sustainability with the need to digitize the processes and data handled. A data-driven approach will allow companies to measure (and estimate) better their environmental impact.
  • CIMdata believes sustainability must be embedded in PLM for companies to reduce their product carbon footprint, and they must have greater visibility into their supply chain.
  • Mark mentions that focusing on a sustainable business model (product & business) is crucial for survival in the upcoming years, and this has increasingly landed at the board level of companies.
  • The major change has to be driven by the business. PLM vendors will not drive the change; they will align their portfolio offerings based on the market needs.
  • It was clear Mark has a lot of experience in wind energy throughout his whole lifecycle 😊

 

Want to learn more

Mark already pointed to several valuable resources in our discussion to learn more. Here are the most important links related to CIMdata

 

 

Conclusions

Last year we discussed sustainability with the software vendors and their product offerings. They all mentioned the importance of a data-driven approach and education. CIMdata has broadened the available sustainability offering for companies by providing additional education and strategy support.

Education at all levels is essential to make sustainable decisions. Sustainable for the company’s business and, above all, sustainable for the planet.

I will be @Livework in Boston, aiming to discuss PLM and Sustainability on behalf of the PGGA with PTC thought leaders. Will you be there too?

 

 

 

The week after the 3DEXPERIENCE User Conference

March 26, 2023 in Circulair Economy, Cloud, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Digital Twin, ENOVIA, PLM | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 comment

I was happy to present and participate at the 3DEXEPRIENCE User Conference held this year in Paris on 14-15 March. The conference was an evolution of the previous ENOVIA User conferences; this time, it was a joint event by both the ENOVIA and the NETVIBES brand.

The conference was, for me, like a reunion. As I have worked for over 25  years in the SmarTeam, ENOVIA and 3DEXPERIENCE eco-system, now meeting people I have worked with and have not seen for over fifteen years.

My presentation: Sustainability Demands Virtualization – and it should happen fast was based on explaining the transformation from a coordinated (document-driven) to a connected (data-driven) enterprise.

There were 100+ attendees at the conference, mainly from Europe, and most of the presentations were coming from customers, where the breakout sessions gave the attendees a chance to dive deeper into the Dassault Systèmes portfolio.

Here are some of my impressions.

 

The power of ENOVIA and NETVIBES

I had a traditional view of the 3DEXPERIENCE platform based on my knowledge of ENOVIA, CATIA and SIMULIA, as many of my engagements were in the domain of MBSE or a model-based approach.

However, at this conference, I discovered the data intelligence side that Dassault Systèmes is bringing with its NETVIBES brand.

Where I would classify the ENOVIA part of the 3DEXPERIENCE platform as a traditional System of Record infrastructure (see Time to Split PLM?).

I discovered that by adding NETVIBES on top of the 3DEXPERIENCE platform and other data sources, the potential scope had changed significantly. See the image below:

As we can see, the ontologies and knowledge graph layer make it possible to make sense of all the indexed data below, including the data from the 3DEXPERIENCE Platform, which provides a modern data-driven layer for its consumers and apps.

The applications on top of this layer, standard or developed, can be considered Systems of Engagement.

My curiosity now: will Dassault Systèmes keep supporting the “old” system of record approach – often based on BOM structures (see also my post: The Rise and Fall of the BOM) combined with the new data-driven environment? In that case, you would have both approaches within one platform.

 

The Virtual Twin versus the Digital Twin

It is interesting to notice that Dassault Systèmes consistently differentiates between the definition of the Virtual Twin and the Digital Twin.

According to the 3DS.com website:

Digital Twins are simply a digital form of an object, a virtual version.

Unlike a digital twin prototype that focuses on one specific object, Virtual Twin Experiences let you visualize, model and simulate the entire environment of a sophisticated experience. As a result, they facilitate sustainable business innovation across the whole product lifecycle.

Understandably, Dassault Systemes makes this differentiation. With the implementation of the Unified Product Structure, they can connect CAD geometry as datasets to other non-CAD datasets, like eBOM and mBOM data.

The Unified Product Structure was not the topic of this event but is worthwhile to notice.

 

REE Automotive

The presentation from Steve Atherton from REE Automotive was interesting because here we saw an example of an automotive startup that decided to go pure for the cloud.

REE Automotive is an Israeli technology company that designs, develops, and produces electric vehicle platforms. Their mission is to provide a modular and scalable electric vehicle platform that can be used by a wide range of industries, including delivery and logistics, passenger cars, and autonomous vehicles.

Steve Atherton is the PLM 3DExperience lead for REE at the Engineering Centre in Coventry in the UK, where they have most designers. REE also has an R&D center in Tel Aviv with offshore support from India and satellite offices in the US

REE decided from the start to implement its PLM backbone in the cloud, a logical choice for such a global spread company.

The cloud was also one of the conference’s central themes, and it was interesting to see that a startup company like REE is pushing for an end-to-end solution based on a cloud solution. So often, you see startups choosing traditional systems as the senior members of the startup to take their (legacy) PLM knowledge to their next company.

The current challenge for REE is implementing the manufacturing processes (EBOM- MBOM) and complying as much as possible with the out-of-the-box best practices to make their cloud implementation future-proof.

 

Groupe Renault

Olivier Mougin, Head of PLM at Groupe RENAULT,  talked about their Renaulution Virtual Twin (RVT) program. Renault has always been a strategic partner of Dassault Systèmes.

 

I remember them as one of the first references for the ENOVIA V6 backbone.

The Renaulution Virtual Twin ambition: from engineering to enterprise platform, is enormous, as you can see below:

Each of the three pillars has transformational aspects beyond traditional ways of working. For each pillar, Olivier explained the business drivers, expected benefits, and why a new approach is needed. I will not go into the details in this post.

However, you can see the transformation from an engineering backbone to an enterprise collaboration platform – The Renaulution!.

Ahmed Lguaouzi, head of marketing at NETVIBES, enforced the extended power of data intelligence on top of an engineering landscape as the target architecture.

Renault’s ambition is enormous – the ultimate dream of digital transformation for a company with a great legacy. The mission will challenge Renault and Dassault Systèmes to implement this vision, which can become a lighthouse for others.

 

3DS PLM Journey at MIELE

An exciting session close to my heart was the digital transformation story from MIELE, explained by André Lietz, head of the IT Products PLM @ Miele. As an old MIELE dishwasher owner, I was curious to learn about their future.

Miele has been a family-owned business since 1899, making high-end domestic and commercial equipment. They are a typical example of the power of German mid-market companies. Moreover, family-owned gives them stability and the opportunity to develop a multi-year transformation roadmap without being distracted by investor demands every few years.

André, with his team, is responsible for developing the value chain inside the product development process (PDP), the operation of nearly 90 IT applications, and the strategic transformation of the overarching PLM Mission 2027+.

As the slide below illustrates, the team is working on four typical transformation drivers:

  • Providing customers with connected, advanced products (increasing R&D complexity)
  • Providing employees with a modern, digital environment (the war for digital talent)
  • Providing sustainable solutions (addressing the whole product lifecycle)
  • Improving internal end-to-end collaboration and information visibility (PLM digital transformation)

André talked about their DELMIA pilot plant/project and its benefits to connect the EBOM and MBOM in the 3DEXPERIENCE platform. From my experience, this is a challenging topic, particularly in German companies, where SAP dominated the BOM for over twenty years.

I am curious to learn more about the progress in the upcoming years. The vision is there; the transformation is significant, but they have the time to succeed! This can be another digital transformation example.

 

 

And more …

Besides some educational sessions by Dassault Systemes (Laurent Bertaud – NETVIBES data science), there were also other interesting customer testimonies from Fernando Petre (IAR80 – Fly Again project), Christian Barlach (ISC Sustainable Construction) and Thelma Bonello (Methode Electronics – end-to-end BOM infrastructure). All sessions helped to get a better understanding about what is possible and what is done in the domain of PLM.

 

Conclusion

I learned a lot during these days, particularly the virtual twin strategy and the related capabilities of data intelligence. As the event was also a reunion for me with many people from my network, I discovered that we all aim at a digital transformation. We have a mission and a vision. The upcoming years will be crucial to implement the mission and realizing the vision. It will be the early adopters like Renault pushing Dassault Systèmes to deliver. I hope to stay tuned. You too?

NOTE: Dassault Systèmes covered some of the expenses associated with my participation in this event but did not in any way influence the content of this post.

 

 

 

 

The rise and the fall of the BOM?

March 12, 2023 in Change, CM, Data centric, Digital Enterprise, Digital Twin, EBOM, ERP, MBOM, model-based, PLM | Tags: , , , , , , | 4 comments

I am writing this post because one of my PLM peers recently asked me this question: “Is the BOM losing its position? He was in discussion with another colleague who told him:

“If you own the BOM, you own the Product Lifecycle”.

This statement made me think of ä recent post from Jan Bosch recent post:  Product Development fallacy #8: the bill of materials has the highest priority.

Software becomes increasingly an essential part of the final product, and combined with Jan’s expertise in software development, he wrote this article.  I recommend reading the full post (4 min read) and next browse through the comments.

If you cannot afford these 10 minutes, here is my favorite quote from the article:

An excessive focus on the bill of materials leads to significant challenges for companies that are undergoing a digital transformation and adopting continuous value delivery. The lack of headroom, high coupling and versioning hell may easily cause an explosion of R&D expenditure over time.

Where did the BOM focus come from? A historical overview related to the rise (and fall) of the BOM.

 

In the beginning, there was the drawing.

Before the era of computers, there was “THE drawing”, describing assemblies, subassemblies or parts. And on the drawing, you can find the parts list if relevant. This parts list was the first Bill of Material, describing the parts/materials shown on the drawing.

 

Next came MRP/ERP

With the introduction of the MRP system (Material Requirement Planning), it was the first step that by using computers, people could collect the material requirements for one system as data and process.

Entering new materials/parts described on drawings was still a manual process, as well as referring to existing parts on the drawing. Reuse of parts was a manual process based on individual knowledge.

In the nineties, MRP evolved into ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), which included the MRP part and added resource and manufacturing planning and financial reporting.

The ERP system became the most significant IT system, the execution system of the company. As it was the first enterprise system implemented, it was the first moment we learned about implementation challenges – people change and budget overruns. However, as the ERP system brought visibility to the company’s execution, it became a “must-have” system for management.

The introduction of mainstream 2D CAD did not affect the company’s culture so much. Drawings became electronic drawings, and the methodology of the parts list on the drawing remained.

Sometimes the interaction with the MRP/ERP system was enhanced by an interface – sending the drawing BOM to ERP. The advantage of the interface: no manual transfer of data reducing typos and BOM errors. The disadvantages at that time: relatively expensive (connectivity between systems was a challenge) and mostly one direction.

 

And then there was PDM.

In parallel with the introduction of ERP systems, mainstream 3D CAD systems became affordable, particularly SolidWorks, Solid Edge and Inventor. These 3D CAD systems allow sharing of parts and assemblies in different products, and the PDM database was the first aid to support part reuse, versioning and standardization.

By extracting the parts from the assemblies and subassemblies, it was possible to generate a BOM structure in the PDM system to be transferred or typed into the ERP system. We did not talk about EBOM or MBOM then, as there was only one BOM in the ERP system, and the PDM system was a tool to feed the ERP system.

Many companies still have based their processes on this approach. ERP (read SAP nowadays) is the central execution system, and PDM is an external system. You might remember the story and image from my previous post about people, processes and tools. The bad practice example: Asking the ERP system to provide a part number when starting to design a part.

 

And then products started to change.

In the early 2000s, I worked with SmarTeam to define the E&E (Electronics and Electrical) template. One of the new concepts was to synchronize all design data coming from different disciplines to a single BOM structure.

It was the time we started to talk about the EBOM. A type of BOM, as the structure to consolidate all the design data, was based on parts.

The EBOM, most of the time, reflects the design intent in logical groups and sending the relevant parts in the correct order to the ERP system was a favorite expensive customization for service providers. How to transfer an engineering BOM view to an ERP system that only understands the manufacturing view?
Note: not all ERP systems have the data model to differentiate between engineering parts and manufacturing parts

The image below illustrates the challenge and the customer’s perception.

The automated link between the design side (EBOM) and manufacturing side (MBOM) was a mission impossible – too many exceptions for the (spaghetti) code.

 

And then came the MBOM.

The identified issues connecting PDM and ERP led to the concept of implementing the MBOM in the PLM system. The MBOM in PLM is one of the characteristics of a PLM implementation compared to a PDM implementation. In a traditional PLM system, there is an interaction and connection between the EBOM and MBOM. EBOM parts should end up as MBOM parts. This interaction can be supported by automation, however, as it is in the same system, still leaving manual changes possible.

The MBOM structure in PLM could then be the information structure to transfer to the ERP system; however, there is more, as Jörg W. Fischer wrote in his provoking post-Die MBOM muss weg (The MBOM must go). He rightly points out (in German) that the MBOM is not a structure on its own but a combination of different views based on Assembly Drawings, Process Planning and Material Requirements.

His conclusion:

Calling these structures, MBOM is trying to squeeze all three structures into one. That usually doesn’t work and then leads to much more emotional discussions in the project. It also costs a lot of money. It is, therefore, better not to use the term MBOM at all.

And indeed, just having an MBOM in your PLM system might help you to prepare some of the manufacturing steps, the needed resources and parts. The MBOM result still has to be localized at the local plant where the manufacturing takes place. And here, the systems used are the ERP system and the MES system.

The main advantage of having the MBOM in the PLM system is the direct relation between specification and manufacturing intent, allowing manufacturing engineering to work collaboratively with engineering in the same environment.

  • The first benefit is fewer iterations and a shorter time to production, thanks to early interaction and manufacturing involvement in the engineering process.
  • The second benefit is: product knowledge is centralized in a single system. Consolidating your Product Knowledge in ERP does not make sense due to global localization and the missing capabilities to manage the iterative engineering processes on non-existing parts.

 

And then came the SBOM, the xBOM

Traditional PLM vendors and implementations kept using xBOM structures as placeholders for related specification data (mechanical designs, electrical, software deliverables, serialized products). Most of the time, related files.

And with this approach, talking about digital thread, PLM systems also touch on the concepts of Configuration Management.

I will not go into the details here but look at the two images by clicking on them and see a similar mindset.

It is about the traceability of information in structures and systems. These structures work well in a relatively static and linear product development and delivery environment, as illustrated below:

Engineering change and release processes are based on managing the changes in different structures from the left to the right.

 

And then came software!

Modern connected products are no longer mechanical products. The product’s functionality no longer depends on the mechanical properties but mainly on embedded electronics and software used. For example, look at the mechanical design of a telecom transmission tower – its behavior merely comes from non-mechanical components, and they can change over time. Still, the Bill of Material contains a lot of concrete and steel parts.

The ultimate example is comparing a Tesla (software on wheels) with a traditional car. For modern connected products, electronics and software need to be part of the solution. Software and electronics allow the product to be upgraded over time. Managing these products in the same manner as mechanical products is impossible, inefficient and therefore threatening your company’s future business.

I requote Jan Bosch:

An excessive focus on the bill of materials leads to significant challenges for companies that are undergoing a digital transformation and adopting continuous value delivery. The lack of headroom, high coupling and versioning hell may easily cause an explosion of R&D expenditure over time.

 

The model-based, connected enterprise

I will not solve the puzzle of the future in this post. You can read my observations in my series: The road to model-based and connected PLM. We need a new infrastructure with at least two modes. One that still serves as a System of Record, storing information in a traditional manner, like a Bill of Materials for the static parts, as not everyone and everything can be connected.

In addition, we need various Systems of Engagement that enable close to real-time interaction between products (systems) and relevant stakeholders for the engagement scope(multidisciplinary / consumers).

Digital twins are examples of such environments. Currently, these Systems of Engagement often work disconnected from the System of Record due to the lack of understanding of how to connect. (standard connectors? / OSLC?)

Our mission is to explore, as I wrote in my post Time to split PLM and drop our mechanical mindset.

And while I was finalizing this post, I read a motivating post from Jan Bosch again for all of you working on understanding and pushing the digital transformation in your eco-system.
The title: Be the protagonist of your life: 15 rules  A starting point for more to come.

 

Conclusion

The BOM is no longer the master of the product lifecycle when it comes to managing connected products, where functionality mainly depends on software. BOM structures with related documents are just one of the extracted baselines from a data-driven, connected enterprise. This traditional PLM infrastructure requires other, non-BOM-driven structures to represent the actual status of a virtual or physical product.
The BOM is not dead, but there is more ………

Your thoughts?

Translate

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

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

  4. 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…

  5. Håkan Kårdén's avatar