You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Awareness’ tag.

When I started this series in July, I expected to talk mostly about new ways of working, enabled through a data-driven and model-based approach. However, when analyzing what is needed for such a future (part 3), it became apparent that many of these new ways of working are dependent on technology.

From coordinated to connected sounds like a business change;

however, it all depends on technology. And here I have to thank Marc Halpern (Gartner’s Research VP, Engineering and Design Technologies)  again, who came with this brilliant scheme below:

So now it is time to address the last point from my starting post:

Configuration Management requires a new approach. The current methodology is very much based on hardware products with labor-intensive change management. However, the world of software products has different configuration management and change procedures. Therefore, we need to merge them into a single framework. Unfortunately, this cannot be the BOM framework due to the dynamics in software changes.

Configuration management at this moment

PLM and CM are often considered overlapping. My March 2019 post: PLM and Configuration Management – a happy marriage? shares some thoughts related to this point

Does having PLM or PDM installed mean you have implemented CM? There is this confusion because revision management is considered the same as configuration management. Read my March 2020 post: What the FFF is happening? Based on a vivid discussion launched by  Yoann Maingon, CEO and founder of Ganister, an example of a modern, graph database-based, flexible PLM solution.

To hear it from a CM-side,  I discussed it with Martijn Dullaart in my February 2021 post: PLM and Configuration Management. We also zoomed in on CM2 in this post as a methodology.

Martijn is the Lead Architect for Enterprise Configuration Management at ASML (Our Dutch national pride) and chairperson of the Industry 4.0 committee of the Integrated Process Excellence (IPX) Congress.

As mentioned before in a previous post (part 6), he will be speaking at the PLM Roadmap & PDT Fall conference starting this upcoming week.

In this post, I want to talk about the CM future. For understanding the current situation, you can find a broad explanation here on Wikipedia. Have a look at CM in the context of the product lifecycle, ensuring that the product As-Specified and As-Designed information matches the As-Built and As-Operated product information.

A mismatch or inconsistency between these artifacts can lead to costly errors, particularly in later lifecycle stages. CM originated from the Aerospace and Defense industry for that reason. However, companies in other industries might have implemented CM practices too. Either due to regulations or thanks to the understanding that configuration mistakes can cause significant damage to the company.

Historically configuration management addresses the needs of “slow-moving” products. For example, the design of an airplane could take years before manufacturing started. Tracking changes and ensuring consistency of all referenced datasets was often a manual process.

On purpose, I wrote “referenced datasets,” as the information was not connected in a single environment most of the time. The identifier of a dataset ( an item or a document) was the primary information carrier used for mentally connecting other artifacts to keep consistency.

The Institute of Process Excellence (IPX) has been one of the significant contributors to configuration management methodology. They have been providing (and still offer) CM2 training and certification.

As mentioned before, PLM vendors or implementers suggest that a PLM system could fully support Configuration Management. However, CM is more than change management, release management and revision management.

As the diagram from Martijn Dullaart shows, PLM is one facet of configuration management.

Of course, there are also (a few) separate CM tools focusing on the configuration management process. CMstat’s EPOCH CM tool is an example of such software. In addition, on their website, you can find excellent articles explaining the history and their future thoughts related to CM.

The future will undoubtedly be a connected, model-based, software-driven environment. Naturally, therefore, configuration management processes will have to change. (Impressive buzz word sentence, still I hope you get the message).

From coordinated to connected has a severe impact on CM. Let’s have a look at the issues.

Configuration Management – the future

The transition to a data-driven and model-based infrastructure has raised the following questions:

  • How to deal with the granularity of data – each dataset needs to be validated. For example, a document (a collection of datasets) needs to be validated in the document-based approach. How to do this efficiently?
  • The behavior of a product (or system) will more and more dependent on software. Product CM practices have been designed for the hardware domain; now, we need a mix of hardware and software CM practices.
  • Due to the increased complexity of products (or systems) and the rapid changes due to software versions, how do we guarantee the As-Operated product is still matching the As-Designed / As-Certified definitions.

I don’t have answers to these questions. I only share observations and trends I see in my actual world.

Granularity of data

The concept of datasets has been discussed in my post (part 6). Now it is about how to manage the right sets of connected data.

The image on the left, borrowed from Erik Herzog’s presentation at the PDM Roadmap & PDT Fall conference in 2020, is a good illustration of the challenge.

At that time, Erik suggested that OSLC could be the enabler of a digital CM backbone for an enterprise. Therefore, it was a pleasure to see Erik providing an update at the yearly OSLC Fest conference this week.

You can find the agenda and Erik’s presentation here on day 2.

OSLC as a framework seems to be a good candidate for supporting modern CM scenarios. It allows a company to build full traceability between all relevant artifacts (if digital available). I can see the beauty of the technical infrastructure.

Still, it is about people and processes first. Therefore, I am curious to learn from my readers who believe and experiment with such a federated infrastructure.

More software

Traditional working companies might believe that software should be treated as part of the Bill of Materials. In this theory, you treat software code as a part, with a part number and revision. In this way, you might believe configuration management practices do not have to change. However, there are some fundamental differences in why we should decouple hardware and software.

First, for the same hardware solution, there might be a whole collection of valid software codes. Just like your computer. How many valid software codes, even from the same application, can you run on this hardware? Managing a computer system and its software through a Bill of Materials is unimaginable.

A computer, of course, is designed for running all kinds of software versions. However, modern products in the field, like cars, machines, electrical devices, all will have a similar type of software-driven flexibility.

For that reason, I believe that companies that deliver software-driven products should design a mechanism to check if the combination of hardware and software is valid. For a computer system, a software mismatch might not be costly or painful; for an industrial system, it might be crucial to ensure invalid combinations can exist. Click on the image to learn more.

Solutions like Configit or pure::variants might lead to a solution. In Feb 2021, I discussed in PLM and Configuration Lifecycle Management with Henrik Hulgaard, the CTO from Configit, the unique features of their solution.

I hope to have a similar post shortly with Pure Systems to understand their added value to configuration management.

Software change management is entirely different from hardware change management. The challenge is to have two different change management approaches under one consistent umbrella without creating needless overhead.

Increased complexity – the digital twin?

With the increased complexity of products and many potential variants of a solution, how can you validate a configuration? Perhaps we should investigate the digital twin concept, with a twin for each instance we want to validate.

Having a complete virtual representation of a product, including the possibility to validate the software behavior on the virtual product, would allow you to run (automated) validation tests to certify and later understand a product in the field.

No need for inspection on-site or test and fix upgrades in the physical world. Needed for space systems for sure, but why not for every system in the long term. When we are able to define and maintain a virtual twin of our physical product (on-demand), we can validate.

I learned about this concept at the 2020 Digital Twin conference in the Netherlands. Bart Theelen from Canon Production Printing explained that they could feed their simulation models with actual customer data to simulate and analyze the physical situation. In some cases, it is even impossible to observe the physical behavior. By tuning the virtual environment, you might understand what happens in the physical world.

An eye-opener and an advocate for the model-based approach. Therefore, I am looking forward to the upcoming PLM Roadmap & PDT Fall conference. Hopefully, Martijn Dullaart will share his thoughts on combining CM and working in a model-based environment. See you there?

Conclusion

Finally, we have reached in this series the methodology part, particularly the one related to configuration management and traceability in a very granular, digital environment.  

After the PLM Roadmap & PDT fall conference, I plan to follow up with three thought leaders on this topic: Martijn Dullaart (ASML), Maxime Gravel (Moog) and Lisa Fenwick (CMstat).  What would you ask them?

In my previous post, I discovered that my header for this series is confusing. Although a future implementation of system lifecycle management (SLM/PLM) will rely on models, the most foundational change needed is a technical one to create a data-driven infrastructure for connected ways of working.

My previous article discussed the concept of the dataset, which led to interesting discussions on LinkedIn and in my personal interactions. Also, this time Matthias Ahrens (HELLA) shared again a relevant but very academic article in this context – how to harmonize company information.

For those who want to dive deeper into the concept of connected datasets, read this article: The euBusinessGraph ontology: A lightweight ontology for harmonizing basic company information.

The article illustrates that the topic is relevant for all larger enterprises (and it is not an easy topic).

This time I want to share my thoughts about the two statements from my introductory post, i.e.:

A model-based approach with connected datasets seems to be the way forward. Managing data in documents will become inefficient as they cannot contribute to any digital accelerator, like applying algorithms. Artificial Intelligence relies on direct access to qualified data.

A model-based approach with connected datasets

We discussed connected datasets in the previous post; now, let’s explore why models and datasets are related. In the traditional CAD-centric PLM domain, most people will associate the word model with a CAD model, to be more precise, the 3D CAD Model. However, there are many other types of models used related to product development, delivery and operations.

A model can be a:

Physical Model

  • A smaller-scale object for the first analysis, e.g., a city or building model, an airplane model

Conceptual Model

  • A conceptual model describes the entities and their relations, e.g., a Process Flow Diagram (PFD)
  • A mathematical model describes a system concept using a mathematical language, e.g., weather or climate models. Modelica and MATLAB would fall in this category
  • A CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) or 3D CAD model is probably the most associated model in the mind of traditional PLM practitioners
  • Functional and Logical Models describing the services and components of a system are crucial in an MBSE

Operational Model

  • A model providing performance analysis based on (real-time) data coming from selected data sources. It could be an operational business model, an asset performance model; even my Garmin’s training performance model is such an operating model.

The list of all models above is not extensive nor academically defined. Moreover, some model term definitions might overlap, e.g., where would we classify software models or manufacturing models?

All models are a best-so-far approach to describing reality. Based on more accurate data from observations or measurements, the model comes closer to what happens in reality.

A model and its data

Never blame the model when there is a difference between what the model predicts and the observed reality. It is still a model.  That’s why we need feedback loops from the actual physical world to the virtual world to fine-tune the model.

Part of what we call Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than applying algorithms to a model. The more accurate data available, the more “intelligent” the artificial intelligence solution will be.

By using data analysis complementary to the model, the model may get better and better through self-learning. Like our human brain, it starts with understanding the world (our model) and collecting experiences (improving our model).

There are two points I would like to highlight for this paragraph:

  • A model is never 100 % the same as reality – so don’t worry about deviations. There will always be a difference between virtual predicted and physical measured – most of the time because reality has much more influencing parameters.
  • The more qualified data we use in the model, the closer to reality – so focus on accurate (and the right) data for your model. Although, as most of the time, it is impossible to fully model a system, focus on the most significant data sources.

The ultimate goal: THE DIGITAL TWIN

The discussion related to data-driven and the usage of models might feel abstract and complex (and that’s the case). However the term “digital twin” is well known and even used in board rooms.

The great benefits of a digital twin for business operations and for sustainability are promoted by many software vendors and consultancy firms.

My statement and reason for this series of blog posts: Digital Twins do not run on documents, you need to have a data-driven, model-based infrastructure to efficiently benefit from digital twin concepts.

Unfortunate a reliable and sustainable implementation of a digital twin requires more than software – it is a learning journey to connect the right data to the right model.
A puzzle every company has to solve as there is no 100 percent blueprint at this time.

Are Low Code platforms the answer?

I mentioned the importance of accurate data. Companies have different systems or even platforms managing enterprise data. The digital dream is that by combining datasets from different systems and platforms, we can provide to any user the needed information in real-time. My statement from my introductory post was:

I don’t believe in Low-Code platforms that provide ad-hoc solutions on demand. The ultimate result after several years might be again a new type of spaghetti. On the other hand, standardized interfaces and protocols will probably deliver higher, long-term benefits. Remember: Low code: A promising trend or a Pandora’s Box?

Let’s look into some of the low-code platform messages mentioned by Low-Code advocates:

You will have an increasingly hard time finding developers to keep up with global app development demands (reason #1 for PEGA)

This statement reminded me of the early days of SmarTeam implementations. With a Data model Wizard, a Form Designer, and a Visual Basic COM API, you could create any kind of data management application with SmarTeam. By using its built-in behaviors for document lifecycle management, item lifecycle management, and CAD integrations combined with easy customizations.

The sky was the limit to satisfy end users.  No need for an experienced partner or to be a skilled programmer (this was 2003+). SmarTeam was a low-code platform the marketing department would say now.

A lot of my activities between 2003 and 2010 were related fixing the problems related to flexibility,  making sense (again) of customizations.  I wrote about this in a 2015 post: The importance of a (PLM) data model sharing the experiences of “fixing” issues created to flexibility.

Think first

The challenge is that an enthusiastic team creates a (low code) solution rapidly. Immediate success is celebrated by the people involved. However, the future impact of this solution is often forgotten – we did the job,  right?

Documentation and a broader visibility are often lacking when implementing such a solution.

For example, suppose your product data is going to be consumed by another app. In that case, you need to make sure that the information you consume is accurate. On the other hand, perhaps the information was valid when you created the app.

However, if your friendly co-worker has moved on to another job and someone with different data standards becomes responsible for the data you consume, the reliability might fail. So how do you guarantee its quality?

Easy tools have often led to spaghetti, starting from Clipper (the old days), Visual Basic (the less old days) to highly customizable systems (like Aras is promoting) and future low-code platforms (and Aras is there again).

However, the strength of being highly flexible is also the weaknesses if not managed and understood correctly. In particular, in a digital enterprise architecture, you need skilled people who guarantee a reliable anchorage of the solution.

The HBR article When Low-Code/No-Code Development Works — and When It Doesn’t mentions the same point:

There are great benefits from LC/NC software development, but management challenges as well. Broad use of these tools institutionalizes the “shadow IT phenomenon, which has bedeviled IT organizations for decades — and could make the problem much worse if not appropriately governed. Citizen developers tend to create applications that don’t work or scale well, and then they try to turn them over to IT. Or the person may leave the company, and no one knows how to change or support the system they developed.

The fundamental difference: from coordinated to connected

For the moment, I remain skeptical about the low-code hype, because I have seen this kind of hype before. The most crucial point companies need to understand is that the coordinated world and the connected world are incompatible.

Using new tools based on old processes and existing data is not a digital transformation. Instead, a focus on value streams and their needed (connected) data should lead to the design of a modern digital enterprise, not the optimization and connectivity between organizational siloes.
Before buying a tool (a medicine) to reduce the current pains, imagine your future ways of working, discover what is possible with your existing infrastructure and identify the gaps.

Next, you need to analyze if these gaps are so significant that it requires a technology change. Probably it does, as historically, systems were not designed to share data horizontally in an organization.

In this context, have a look at Lionel Grealou’s s article for Engineering.com:
Data Readiness in the new age of digital collaboration.

Conclusion

We discussed the crucial relation between models and data. Models have only value if they acquire the right and accurate data (exercise 1).

Next, even the simplest development platforms, like low-code platforms, require brains and a long-term strategy (exercise 2) – nothing is simple at this moment in transformational times.  

The next and final post in this series will focus on configuration management – a new approach is needed. I don’t have the answers, but I will share some thoughts

A recommended event and an exciting agenda and a good place to validate and share your thoughts.

I will be there and look forward to meeting you at this conference (unfortunate still virtually)

In my last post, I zoomed in on a preferred technical architecture for the future digital enterprise. Drawing the conclusion that it is a mission impossible to aim for a single connected environment. Instead, information will be stored in different platforms, both domain-oriented (PLM, ERP, CRM, MES, IoT) and value chain oriented (OEM, Supplier, Marketplace, Supply Chain hub).

In part 3, I posted seven statements that I will be discussing in this series. In this post, I will zoom in on point 2:

Data-driven does not mean we do not need any documents anymore. Read electronic files for documents. Likely, document sets will still be the interface to non-connected entities, suppliers, and regulatory bodies. These document sets can be considered a configuration baseline.

 

System of Record and System of Engagement

In the image below, a slide from 2016,  I show a simplified view when discussing the difference between the current, coordinated approach and the future, connected approach.  This picture might create the wrong impression that there are two different worlds – either you are document-driven, or you are data-driven.

In the follow-up of this presentation, I explained that companies need both environments in the future. The most efficient way of working for operations will be infrastructure on the right side, the platform-based approach using connected information.

For traceability and disconnected information exchanges, the left side will be there for many years to come. Systems of Record are needed for data exchange with disconnected suppliers, disconnected regulatory bodies and probably crucial for configuration management.

The System of Record will probably remain as a capability in every platform or cross-section of platform information. The Systems of Engagement will be the configured real-time environment for anyone involved in active company processes, not only ERP or MES, all execution.

Introducing SysML and SML

This summer, I received a copy of Martin Eigner’s System Lifecycle Management book, which I am reading at his moment in my spare moments. I always enjoyed Martin’s presentations. In many ways, we share similar ideas. Martin from his profession spent more time on the academic aspects of product and system lifecycle than I. But, on the other hand, I have always been in the field observing and trying to make sense of what I see and learn in a coherent approach. I am halfway through the book now, and for sure, I will come back on the book when I have finished.

A first impression: A great and interesting book for all. Martin and I share the same history of data management. Read all about this in his second chapter: Forty Years of Product Data Management

From PDM via PLM to SysLM, is a chapter that everyone should read when you haven’t lived it yourself. It helps you to understand the past (Learning for the past to understand the future). When I finish this series about the model-based and connected approach for products and systems, Martin’s book will be highly complementary given the content he describes.

There is one point for which I am looking forward to is feedback from the readers of this blog.

Should we, in our everyday language, better differentiate between Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) and System Lifecycle Management(SysLM)?

In some customer situations, I talk on purpose about System Lifecycle Management to create the awareness that the company’s offering is more than an electro/mechanical product. Or ultimately, in a more circular economy, would we use the term Solution Lifecycle Management as not only hardware and software might be part of the value proposition?

Martin uses consistently the abbreviation SysLM, where I would prefer the TLA SLM. The problem we both have is that both abbreviations are not unique or explicit enough. SysLM creates confusion with SysML (for dyslectic people or fast readers). SLM already has so many less valuable meanings: Simulation Lifecycle Management, Service Lifecycle Management or Software Lifecycle Management.

For the moment, I will use the abbreviation SLM, leaving it in the middle if it is System Lifecycle Management or Solution Lifecycle Management.

 

How to implement both approaches?

In the long term, I predict that more than 80 percent of the activities related to SLM will take place in a data-driven, model-based environment due to the changing content of the solutions offered by companies.

A solution will be based on hardware, the solid part of the solution, for which we could apply a BOM-centric approach. We can see the BOM-centric approach in most current PLM implementations. It is the logical result of optimizing the product lifecycle management processes in a coordinated manner.

However, the most dynamic part of the solution will be covered by software and services. Changing software or services related to a solution has completely different dynamics than a hardware product.

Software and services implementations are associated with a data-driven, model-based approach.

The management of solutions, therefore, needs to be done in a connected manner. Using the BOM-centric approach to manage software and services would create a Kafkaesque overhead.

Depending on your company’s value proposition to the market, the challenge will be to find the right balance. For example, when you keep on selling disconnectedhardware, there is probably no need to change your internal PLM processes that much.

However, when you are moving to a connected business model providing solutions (connected systems / Outcome-based services), you need to introduce new ways of working with a different go-to-market mindset. No longer linear, but iterative.

A McKinsey concept, I have been promoting several times, illustrates a potential path – note the article was not written with a PLM mindset but in a business mindset.

What about Configuration Management?

The different datasets defining a solution also challenge traditional configuration management processes. Configuration Management (CM) is well established in the aerospace & defense industry. In theory, proper configuration management should be the target of every industry to guarantee an appropriate performance, reduced risk and cost of fixing issues.

The challenge, however, is that configuration management processes are not designed to manage systems or solutions, where dynamic updates can be applied whether or not done by the customer.

This is a topic to solve for the modern Connected Car (system) or Connected Car Sharing (solution)

For that reason, I am inquisitive to learn more from Martijn Dullaart’s presentation at the upcoming PLM Roadmap/PDT conference. The title of his session: The next disruption please …

In his abstract for this session, Martijn writes:

From Paper to Digital Files brought many benefits but did not fundamentally impact how Configuration Management was and still is done. The process to go digital was accelerated because of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Forced to work remotely was the disruption that was needed to push everyone to go digital. But a bigger disruption to CM has already arrived. Going model-based will require us to reexamine why we need CM and how to apply it in a model-based environment. Where, from a Configuration Management perspective, a digital file still in many ways behaves like a paper document, a model is something different. What is the deliverable? How do you manage change in models? How do you manage ownership? How should CM adopt MBx, and what requirements to support CM should be considered in the successful implementation of MBx? It’s time to start unraveling these questions in search of answers.

One of the ideas I am currently exploring is that we need a new layer on top of the current configuration management processes extending the validation to software and services. For example, instead of describing every validated configuration, a company might implement the regular configuration management processes for its hardware.

Next, the systems or solutions in the field will report (or validate) their configuration against validation rules. A topic that requires a long discussion and more than this blog post, potentially a full conference.

Therefore I am looking forward to participating in the CIMdata/PDT FALL conference and pick-up the discussions towards a data-driven, model-based future with the attendees.  Besides CM, there are several other topics of great interest for the future. Have a look at the agenda here

 

Conclusion

A data-driven and model-based infrastructure still need to be combined with a coordinated, document-driven infrastructure.  Where the focus will be, depends on your company’s value proposition.

If we discuss hardware products, we should think PLM. When you deliver systems, you should perhaps talk SysML (or SLM). And maybe it is time to define Solution Lifecycle Management as the term for the future.

Please, share your thoughts in the comments.

 

My previous post introducing the concept of connected platforms created some positive feedback and some interesting questions. For example, the question from Maxime Gravel:

Thank you, Jos, for the great blog. Where do you see Change Management tool fit in this new Platform ecosystem?

is one of the questions I try to understand too. You can see my short comment in the comments here. However, while discussing with other experts in the CM-domain, we should paint the path forward. Because if we cannot solve this type of question, the value of connected platforms will be disputable.

It is essential to realize that a digital transformation in the PLM domain is challenging. No company or vendor has the perfect blueprint available to provide an end-to-end answer for a connected enterprise. In addition, I assume it will take 10 – 20 years till we will be familiar with the concepts.

It takes a generation to move from drawings to 3D CAD. It will take another generation to move from a document-driven, linear process to data-driven, real-time collaboration in an iterative manner.  Perhaps we can move faster, as the Automotive, Aerospace & Defense, and Industrial Equipment industries are not the most innovative industries at this time. Other industries or startups might lead us faster into the future.

Although I prefer discussing methodology, I believe before moving into that area, I need to clarify some more technical points before moving forward. My apologies for writing it in such a simple manner. This information should be accessible for the majority of readers.

What means data-driven?

I often mention a data-driven environment, but what do I mean precisely by that. For me, a data-driven environment means that all information is stored in a dataset that contains a single aspect of information in a standardized manner, so it becomes accessible by outside tools.

A document is not a dataset, as often it includes a collection of datasets. Most of the time, the information it is exposed to is not standardized in such a manner a tool can read and interpret the exact content. We will see that a dataset needs an identifier, a classification, and a status.

An identifier to be able to create a connection between other datasets – traceability or, in modern words, a digital thread.
A classification as the classification identifier will determine the type of information the dataset contains and potential a set of mandatory attributes

A status to understand if the dataset is stable or still in work.

Examples of a data-driven approach – the item

The most common dataset in the PLM world is probably the item (or part) in a Bill of Material. The identifier is the item number (ID + revision if revisions are used). Next, the classification will tell you the type of part it is.

Part classification can be a topic on its own, and every industry has its taxonomy.

Finally, the status is used to identify if the dataset is shareable in the context of other information (released, in work, obsolete), allowing tools to expose only relevant information.

In a data-driven manner, a part can occur in several Bill of Materials – an example of a single definition consumed in other places.

When the part information changes, the accountable person has to analyze the relations to the part, which is easy in a data-driven environment. It is normal to find this functionality in a PDM or ERP system.

When the part would change in a document-driven environment, the effort is much higher.

First, all documents need to be identified where this part occurs. Then the impact of change needs to be managed in document versions, which will lead to other related changes if you want to keep the information correct.

Examples of a data-driven approach – the requirement

Another example illustrating the benefits of a data-driven approach is implementing requirements management, where requirements become individual datasets.  Often a product specification can contain hundreds of requirements, addressing the needs of different stakeholders.

In addition, several combinations of requirements need to be handled by other disciplines, mechanical, electrical, software, quality and legal, for example.

As requirements need to be analyzed and ranked, a specification document would never be frozen. Trade-off analysis might lead to dropping or changing a single requirement. It is almost impossible to manage this all in a document, although many companies use Excel. The disadvantages of Excel are known, in particular in a dynamic environment.

The advantage of managing requirements as datasets is that they can be grouped. So, for example, they can be pushed to a supplier (as a specification).

Or requirements could be linked to test criteria and test cases, without the need to manage documents and make sure you work with them last updated document.

As you will see, also requirements need to have an Identifier (to manage digital relations), a classification (to allow grouping) and a status (in work / released /dropped)

Data-driven and Models – the 3D CAD model

3D PDF Model

When I launched my series related to the model-based approach in 2018, the first comments I got came from people who believed that model-based equals the usage of 3D CAD models – see Model-based – the confusion. 3D Models are indeed an essential part of a model-based infrastructure, as the 3D model provides an unambiguous definition of the physical product. Just look at how most vendors depict the aspects of a virtual product using 3D (wireframe) models.

Although we use a 3D representation at each product lifecycle stage, most companies do not have a digital continuity for the 3D representation. Design models are often too heavy for visualization and field services support. The connection between engineering and manufacturing is usually based on drawings instead of annotated models.

I wrote about modern PLM and Model-Based Definition, supported by Jennifer Herron from Action Engineering – read the post PLM and Model-Based Definition here.

If your company wants to master a data-driven approach, this is one of the most accessible learning areas. You will discover that connecting engineering and manufacturing requires new technology, new ways of working and much more coordination between stakeholders.

Implementing Model-Based Definition is not an easy process. However, it is probably one of the best steps to get your digital transformation moving. The benefits of connected information between engineering and manufacturing have been discussed in the blog post PLM and Model-Based Definition

Essential to realize all these exciting capabilities linked to Industry 4.0 require a data-driven, model-based connection between engineering and manufacturing.

If this is not the case, the projected game-changers will not occur as they become too costly.

Data-driven and mathematical models

To manage complexity, we have learned that we have to describe the behavior in models to make logical decisions. This can be done in an abstract model, purely based on mathematical equations and relations. For example, suppose you look at climate models, weather models or COVID infections models.

In that case, we see they all lead to discussions from so-called experts that believe a model should be 100 % correct and any exception shows the model is wrong.

It is not that the model is wrong; the expectations are false.

For less complex systems and products, we also use models in the engineering domain. For example, logical models and behavior models are all descriptive models that allow people to analyze the behavior of a product.

For example, how software code impacts the product’s behavior. Usually, we speak about systems when software is involved, as the software will interact with the outside world.

There can be many models related to a product, and if you want to get an impression, look at this page from the SEBoK wiki: Types of Models. The current challenge is to keep the relations between these models by sharing parameters.

The sharable parameters then again should be datasets in a data-driven environment. Using standardized diagrams, like SysML or UML,  enables the used objects in the diagram to become datasets.

I will not dive further into the modeling details as I want to remain at a high level.

Essential to realize digital models should connect to a data-driven infrastructure by sharing relevant datasets.

What does data-driven imply?

 

I want to conclude this time with some statements to elaborate on further in upcoming posts and discussions

  1. Data-driven does not imply there needs to be a single environment, a single database that contains all information. Like I mentioned in my previous post, it will be about managing connected datasets in a federated manner. It is not anymore about owned the data; it is about access to reliable data.
  2. Data-driven does not mean we do not need any documents anymore. Read electronic files for documents. Likely, document sets will still be the interface to non-connected entities, suppliers, and regulatory bodies. These document sets can be considered a configuration baseline.
  3. Data-driven means that we need to manage data in a much more granular manner. We have to look different at data ownership. It becomes more data accountability per role as the data can be used and consumed throughout the product lifecycle.
  4. Data-driven means that you need to have an enterprise architecture, data governance and a master data management (MDM) approach. So far, the traditional PLM vendors have not been active in the MDM domain as they believe their proprietary data model is leading. Read also this interesting McKinsey article: How enterprise architects need to evolve to survive in a digital world
  5. A model-based approach with connected datasets seems to be the way forward. Managing data in documents will become inefficient as they cannot contribute to any digital accelerator, like applying algorithms. Artificial Intelligence relies on direct access to qualified data.
  6. I don’t believe in Low-Code platforms that provide ad-hoc solutions on demand. The ultimate result after several years might be again a new type of spaghetti. On the other hand, standardized interfaces and protocols will probably deliver higher, long-term benefits. Remember: Low code: A promising trend or a Pandora’s Box?
  7. Configuration Management requires a new approach. The current methodology is very much based on hardware products with labor-intensive change management. However, the world of software products has different configuration management and change procedure. Therefore, we need to merge them in a single framework. Unfortunately, this cannot be the BOM framework due to the dynamics in software changes. An interesting starting point for discussion can be found here: Configuration management of industrial products in PDM/PLM

 

Conclusion

Again, a long post, slowly moving into the future with many questions and points to discuss. Each of the seven points above could be a topic for another blog post, a further discussion and debate.

After my summer holiday break in August, I will follow up. I hope you will join me in this journey by commenting and contributing with your experiences and knowledge.

 

 

 

 

So far, I have been discussing PLM experiences and best practices that have changed due to introducing electronic drawings and affordable 3D CAD systems for the mainstream. From vellum to PDM to item-centric PLM to manage product designs and manufacturing specifications.

Although the technology has improved, the overall processes haven’t changed so much. As a result, disciplines could continue to work in their own comfort zone, most of the time hidden and disconnected from the outside world.

Now, thanks to digitalization, we can connect and format information in real-time. Now we can provide every stakeholder in the company’s business to have almost real-time visibility on what is happening (if allowed). We have seen the benefits of platformization, where the benefits come from real-time connectivity within an ecosystem.

Apple, Amazon, Uber, Airbnb are the non-manufacturing related examples. Companies are trying to replicate these models for other businesses, connecting the concept owner (OEM ?), with design and manufacturing (services), with suppliers and customers. All connected through information, managed in data elements instead of documents – I call it connected PLM

Vendors have already shared their PowerPoints, movies, and demos from how the future would be in the ideal world using their software. The reality, however, is that implementing such solutions requires new business models, a new type of organization and probably new skills.

The last point is vital, as in schools and organizations, we tend to teach what we know from the past as this gives some (fake) feeling of security.

The reality is that most of us will have to go through a learning path, where skills from the past might become obsolete; however, knowledge of the past might be fundamental.

In the upcoming posts, I will share with you what I see, what I deduct from that and what I think would be the next step to learn.

I firmly believe connected PLM requires the usage of various models. Not only the 3D CAD model, as there are so many other models needed to describe and analyze the behavior of a product.

I hope that some of my readers can help us all further on the path of connected PLM (with a model-based approach). This series of posts will be based on the max size per post (avg 1500 words) and the ideas and contributes coming from you and me.

What is platformization?

In our day-to-day life, we are more and more used to direct interaction between resellers and services providers on one side and consumers on the other side. We have a question, and within 24 hours, there is an answer. We want to purchase something, and potentially the next day the goods are delivered. These are examples of a society where all stakeholders are connected in a data-driven manner.

We don’t have to create documents or specialized forms. An app or a digital interface allows us to connect. To enable this type of connectivity, there is a need for an underlying platform that connects all stakeholders. Amazon and Salesforce are examples for commercial activities, Facebook for social activities and, in theory, LinkedIn for professional job activities.

The platform is responsible for direct communication between all stakeholders.

The same applies to businesses. Depending on the products or services they deliver, they could benefit from one or more platforms. The image below shows five potential platforms that I identified in my customer engagements. Of course, they have a PLM focus (in the middle), and the grouping can be made differently.

Five potential business platforms

The 5 potential platforms

The ERP platform
is mainly dedicated to the company’s execution processes – Human Resources, Purchasing, Finance, Production scheduling, and potentially many more services. As platforms try to connect as much as possible all stakeholders. The ERP platform might contain CRM capabilities, which might be sufficient for several companies. However, when the CRM activities become more advanced, it would be better to connect the ERP platform to a CRM platform. The same logic is valid for a Product Innovation Platform and an ERP platform.  Examples of ERP platforms are SAP and Oracle (and they will claim they are more than ERP)

Note: Historically, most companies started with an ERP system, which is not the same as an ERP platform.  A platform is scalable; you can add more apps without having to install a new system. In a platform, all stored data is connected and has a shared data model.

The CRM platform

a platform that is mainly focusing on customer-related activities, and as you can see from the diagram, there is an overlap with capabilities from the other platforms. So again, depending on your core business and products, you might use these capabilities or connect to other platforms. Examples of CRM platforms are Salesforce and Pega, providing a platform to further extend capabilities related to core CRM.

The MES platform
In the past, we had PDM and ERP and what happened in detail on the shop floor was a black box for these systems. MES platforms have become more and more important as companies need to trace and guide individual production orders in a data-driven manner. Manufacturing Execution Systems (and platforms) have their own data model. However, they require input from other platforms and will provide specific information to other platforms.

For example, if we want to know the serial number of a product and the exact production details of this product (used parts, quality status), we would use an MES platform. Examples of MES platforms (none PLM/ERP related vendors) are Parsec and Critical Manufacturing

The IoT platform

these platforms are new and are used to monitor and manage connected products. For example, if you want to trace the individual behavior of a product of a process, you need an IoT platform. The IoT platform provides the product user with performance insights and alerts.

However, it also provides the product manufacturer with the same insights for all their products. This allows the manufacturer to offer predictive maintenance or optimization services based on the experience of a large number of similar products.  Examples of IoT platforms (none PLM/ERP-related vendors) are Hitachi and Microsoft.

The Product Innovation Platform (PIP)

All the above platforms would not have a reason to exist if there was not an environment where products were invented, developed, and managed. The Product Innovation Platform PIP – as described by CIMdata  -is the place where Intellectual Property (IP) is created, where companies decide on their portfolio and more.

The PIP contains the traditional PLM domain. It is also a logical place to manage product quality and technical portfolio decisions, like what kind of product platforms and modules a company will develop. Like all previous platforms, the PIP cannot exist without other platforms and requires connectivity with the other platforms is applicable.

Look below at the CIMdata definition of a Product Innovation Platform.

You will see that most of the historical PLM vendors aiming to be a PIP (with their different flavors): Aras, Dassault Systèmes, PTC and Siemens.

Of course, several vendors sell more than one platform or even create the impression that everything is connected as a single platform. Usually, this is not the case, as each platform has its specific data model and combining them in a single platform would hurt the overall performance.

Therefore, the interaction between these platforms will be based on standardized interfaces or ad-hoc connections.

Standard interfaces or ad-hoc connections?

Suppose your role and information needs can be satisfied within a single platform. In that case, most likely, the platform will provide you with the right environment to see and manipulate the information.

However, it might be different if your role requires access to information from other platforms. For example, it could be as simple as an engineer analyzing a product change who needs to know the actual stock of materials to decide how and when to implement a change.

This would be a PIP/ERP platform collaboration scenario.

Or even more complex, it might be a product manager wanting to know how individual products behave in the field to decide on enhancements and new features. This could be a PIP, CRM, IoT and MES collaboration scenario if traceability of serial numbers is needed.

The company might decide to build a custom app or dashboard for this role to support such a role. Combining in real-time data from the relevant platforms, using standard interfaces (preferred) or using API’s, web services, REST services, microservices (for specialists) and currently in fashion Low-Code development platforms, which allow users to combine data services from different platforms without being an expert in coding.

Without going too much in technology, the topics in this paragraph require an enterprise architecture and vision. It is opportunistic to think that your existing environment will evolve smoothly into a digital highway for the future by “fixing” demands per user. Your infrastructure is much more likely to end up congested as spaghetti.

In that context, I read last week an interesting post Low code: A promising trend or Pandora’s box. Have a look and decide for yourself

I am less focused on technology, more on methodology. Therefore, I want to come back to the theme of my series: The road to model-based and connected PLM. For sure, in the ideal world, the platforms I mentioned, or other platforms that run across these five platforms, are cloud-based and open to connect to other data sources. So, this is the infrastructure discussion.

In my upcoming blog post, I will explain why platforms require a model-based approach and, therefore, cause a challenge, particularly in the PLM domain.

It took us more than fifty years to get rid of vellum drawings. It took us more than twenty years to introduce 3D CAD for design and engineering. Still primarily relying on drawings. It will take us for sure one generation to switch from document-based engineering to model-based engineering.

Conclusion

In this post, I tried to paint a picture of the ideal future based on connected platforms. Such an environment is needed if we want to be highly efficient in designing, delivering, and maintaining future complex products based on hardware and software. Concepts like Digital Twin and Industry 4.0 require a model-based foundation.

In addition, we will need Digital Twins to reach our future sustainability goals efficiently. So, there is work to do.

Your opinion, Your contribution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

In March 2018, I started a series of blog posts related to model-based approaches. The first post was:  Model-Based – an introduction.  The reactions to these series of posts can be summarized in two bullets:

  • Readers believed that the term model-based was focusing on the 3D CAD model. A logical association as PLM is often associated with 3D CAD-model data management (actually PDM), and in many companies, the 3D CAD model is (yet) not a major information carrier/
  • Readers were telling me that a model-based approach is too far from their day-to-day life. I have to agree here. I was active in some advanced projects where the product’s behavior depends on a combination of hardware and software. However, most companies still work in a document-driven, siloed discipline manner merging all deliverables in a BOM.

More than 3 years later, I feel that model-based approaches have become more and more visible for companies. One of the primary reasons is that companies start to collaborate in the cloud and realize the differences between a coordinated and a connected manner.

Initiatives as Industry 4.0 or concepts like the Digital Twin demand a model-based approach. This post is a follow-up to my recent post, The Future of PLM.

History has shown that it is difficult for companies to change engineering concepts. So let’s first look back at how concepts slowly changed.

The age of paper drawings

In the sixties of the previous century, the drawing board was the primary “tool” to specify a mechanical product. The drawing on its own was often a masterpiece drawn on special paper, with perspectives, details, cross-sections.

All these details were needed to transfer the part or assembly information to manufacturing. The drawing set should contain all information as there were no computers.

Making a prototype was, depending on the complexity of the product, the interpretation of the drawings and manufacturability of a product, not always that easy.  After a first release, further modifications to the product definition were often marked on the manufacturing drawings using a red pencil. Terms like blueprint and redlining come from the age of paper drawings.

There are still people talking nostalgically about these days as creating and interpreting drawings was an important skill. However, the inefficiencies with this approach were significant.

  • First, updating drawings because there was redlining in manufacturing was often not done – too much work.
  • Second, drawing reuse was almost impossible; you had to start from scratch.
  • Third, and most importantly, you needed to be very skilled in interpreting a drawing set. In particular, when dealing with suppliers that might not have the same skillset and the knowledge of which drawing version was actual.

However, paper was and still is the cheapest neutral format to distribute designs. The last time I saw companies still working with paper drawings was at the end of the previous century.

Curious to learn if they are now extinct?

The age of electronic drawings (CAD)

With the introduction of AutoCAD and personal computers around 1982, more companies started to look into drafting with the computer. There was already the IBM drafting system in 1965, but it was Autodesk that pushed the 2D drafting business with their slogan:

“80 percent of the functionality for 20 percent of the price (Autodesk 1982)”

A little later, I started to work for an Autodesk distributor/reseller. People would come to the showroom to see how a computer drawing could be plotted in the finest quality at the end. But, of course, the original draftsman did not like the computer as the screen was too small.

However, the enormous value came from making changes, the easy way of sharing drawings and the ease of reuse. The picture on the left is me in 1989, demonstrating AutoCAD with a custom-defined tablet and PS/2 computer.

The introduction of electronic drawings was not a disruption, more optimization of the previous ways of working.

The exchange with suppliers and manufacturing could still be based on plotted drawings – the most neutral format. And thanks to the filename, there was better control of versions between all stakeholders.

Aren’t we all happy?

The introduction of mainstream 3D CAD

In 1995,  3D CAD became available for the mid-market, thanks to SolidWorks, Solid Edge and a little later Inventor. Before that working with 3D CAD was only possible for companies that could afford expensive graphic stations, provided by IBM, Silicon Graphics, DEC and SUN. Where are they nowadays? The PC is an example of disruptive innovation, purely based on technology. See Clayton Christensen’s famous book: The Innovator’s Dilemma.

The introduction of 3D CAD on PCs in the mid-market did not lead directly to new ways of working. Designing a product in 3D was much more efficient if you mastered the skills. 3D brought a better understanding of the product dimensions and shape, reducing the number of interpretation errors.

Still, (electronic) drawings were the contractual deliverable when interacting with suppliers and manufacturing.  As students were more and more trained with the 3D CAD tools, the traditional art of the draftsman disappeared.

3D CAD introduced some new topics to solve.

  • First of all, a 3D CAD Assembly in the system was a collection of separate files, subassemblies, parts, and drawings that relate to each other with a specific version. So how to ensure the final assembly drawings were based on the correct part revisions? Companies were solving this by either using intelligent filenames (with revisions) or by using a PDM system where the database of the PDM system managed all the relations and their status.
  • The second point was that the 3D CAD assembly also introduced a new feature, the product structure, or the “Bill of Materials”. This logical structure of the assembly up resembled a lot of the Bill of Material of the product. You could even browse deeper levels, which was not the case in the traditional Bill of Material on a drawing.

Note: The concept of EBOM and MBOM was not known in most companies. People were talking about the BOM as a one-level definition of parts or subassemblies in the assembly. See my Where is the MBOM? Post from July 2008 when this topic was still under discussion.

  • The third point that would have a more significant impact later is that parts and assemblies could be reused in other products. This introduced the complexity of configuration management. For example, a 3D CAD part or assembly file could contain several configurations where only one configuration would be valid for the given product. Managing this in the 3D CAD system lead to higher productivity of the designer, however downstream when it came to data management with PDM systems, it became a nightmare.

I experienced these issues a lot when discussing with companies and implementers, mainly the implementation of SmarTeam combined with SolidWorks and Inventor. Where to manage the configuration constraints? In the PDM system or inside the 3D CAD system.

These environments were not friends (image above), and even if they came from the same vendor, it felt like discussing with tribes.

The third point also covered another topic. So far, CAD had been the first step for the detailed design of a product. However, companies now had an existing Bill of Material in the system thanks to the PDM systems. It could be a Bill of Material of a sub-assembly that is used in many other products.

Configuring a product no longer started from CAD; it started from a Product or Bill of Material structure. Sales and Engineers identified the changes needed on the BoM, keeping as much as possible released information untouched. This led to a new best practice.

The item-centric approach

Around 2005, five years after introducing the term Product Lifecycle Management, slowly, a new approach became the standard. Product Lifecycle Management was initially introduced to connect engineering and manufacturing, driven by the automotive and aerospace industry.

It was with PLM that concepts as EBOM and MBOM became visible.

In particular, the EBOM was closely linked to engineering practices, i.e., modularity and reuse. The EBOM and its related information represented the product as it was specified. It is essential to realize that the parts in the EBOM could be generic specified purchase parts to be resolved when producing the product or that the EBOM contained Make-parts specified by drawings.

At that time, the EBOM was often used as the foundation for the ERP system – see image above. The BOM was restructured and organized according to the manufacturing process specifying materials and resources needed in the ERP system. Therefore, although it was an item-like structure, this BOM (the MBOM) always had a close relation to the Bill of Process.

For companies with a single manufacturing site, the notion of EBOM and MBOM was not that big, as the ERP system would be the source of the MBOM. However, the complexity came when companies have several manufacturing sites. That was when a generic MBOM in the PLM system made more sense to centralize all product information in a single system.

The EBOM-MBOM approach has become more and more a standard practice since 2010. As a result, even small and medium-sized enterprises realized a need to manage the EBOM and the MBOM.

There were two disadvantages introduced with this EBOM-MBOM approach.

  • First, the EBOM and the MBOM as information structures require a lot of administrative maintenance if information needs to be always correct (and that is the CM target).  Some try to simplify this by keeping the EBOM part the same as the MBOM part, meaning the EBOM specification already targets a single supplier or manufacturer.
  • The second disadvantage of making every item in the BOM behave like a part creates inefficiencies in modern environments. Products are a mix of hardware(parts) and software(models/behavior). This BOM-centric view does not provide the proper infrastructure for a data-driven approach as part specifications are still done in drawings. We need 3D annotated models related to all kinds of other behavior and physical models to specify a product that contains hard-and software.

A new paradigm is needed to manage this mix efficiently, the enabling foundation for Industry 4.0 and efficient Digital Twins; there is a need for a model-based approach based on connected data elements.

More next week.

Conclusion

The age of paper drawings 1960 – now dead
The age of electronic drawings 1982 – potentially dead in 2030
The mainstream 3D CAD 1995 – to be evolving through MBD and MBSE to the future – not dead shortly
Item-centric approach 2005 – to be evolving to a connected model-based approach – not dead shortly

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

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

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

 

Model-Based Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Model-Based Definition for Everybody?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

These practices have reduced error and reduced time to market.

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

Model-Based Definition and PLM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Model-Based Definition and Digital Transformation

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

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

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

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

And then there is OSCAR.

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more about what OSCAR is here:

Want to learn more?

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

 

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

What I learned

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

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

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

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

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

There is work to do!

Conclusion

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Model-Based Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Model-Based Definition for Everybody?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

These practices have reduced error and reduced time to market.

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

Model-Based Definition and PLM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Model-Based Definition and Digital Transformation

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

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

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

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

And then there is OSCAR.

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

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

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

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

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

Learn more about what OSCAR is here:

Want to learn more?

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

 

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

What I learned

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

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

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

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

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

There is work to do!

Conclusion

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

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

 

One of my favorite conferences is the PLM Road Map & PDT conference. Probably because in the pre-COVID days, it was the best PLM conference to network with peers focusing on PLM practices, standards, and sustainability topics. Now the conference is virtual, and hopefully, after the pandemic, we will meet again in the conference space to elaborate on our experiences further.

Last year’s fall conference was special because we had three days filled with a generic PLM update and several A&D (Aerospace & Defense) working groups updates, reporting their progress and findings. Sessions related to the Multiview BOM researchGlobal Collaboration, and several aspects of Model-Based practices: Model-Based Definition, Model-Based Engineering & Model-Based Systems engineering.

All topics that I will elaborate on soon. You can refresh your memory through these two links:

This year, it was a two-day conference with approximately 200 attendees discussing how emerging technologies can disrupt the current PLM landscape and reshape the PLM Value Equation. During the first day of the conference, we focused on technology.

On the second day, we looked in addition to the impact new technology has on people and organizations.

Today’s Emerging Trends & Disrupters

Peter Bilello, CIMdata’s President & CEO, kicked off the conference by providing CIMdata observations of the market. An increasing number of technology capabilities, like cloud, additive manufacturing, platforms, digital thread, and digital twin, all with the potential of realizing a connected vision. Meanwhile, companies evolve at their own pace, illustrating that the gap between the leaders and followers becomes bigger and bigger.

Where is your company? Can you afford to be a follower? Is your PLM ready for the future? Probably not, Peter states.

Next, Peter walked us through some technology trends and their applicability for a future PLM, like topological data analytics (TDA), the Graph Database, Low-Code/No-Code platforms, Additive Manufacturing, DevOps, and Agile ways of working during product development. All capabilities should be related to new ways of working and updated individual skills.

I fully agreed with Peter’s final slide – we have to actively rethink and reshape PLM – not by calling it different but by learning, experimenting, and discussing in the field.

Digital Transformation Supporting Army Modernization

An interesting viewpoint related to modern PLM came from Dr. Raj Iyer, Chief Information Officer for IT Reform from the US Army. Rai walked us through some of the US Army’s challenges, and he gave us some fantastic statements to think about. Although an Army cannot be compared with a commercial business, its target remains to be always ahead of the competition and be aware of the competition.

Where we would say “data is the new oil”, Rai Iyer said: “Data is the ammunition of the future fight – as fights will more and more take place in cyberspace.”

The US Army is using a lot of modern technology – as the image below shows. The big difference here with regular businesses is that it is not about ROI but about winning fights.

Also, for the US Army, the cloud becomes the platform of the future. Due to the wide range of assets, the US Army has to manage, the importance of product data standards is evident.  – Rai mentioned their contribution and adherence to the ISO 10303 STEP standard crucial for interoperability. It was an exciting insight into the US Army’s current and future challenges. Their primary mission remains to stay ahead of the competition.

Joining up Engineering Data without losing the M in PLM

Nigel Shaw’s (Eurostep) presentation was somehow philosophical but precisely to the point what is the current dilemma in the PLM domain.  Through an analogy of the internet, explaining that we live in a world of HTTP(s) linking, we create new ways of connecting information. The link becomes an essential artifact in our information model.

Where it is apparent links are crucial for managing engineering data, Nigel pointed out some of the significant challenges of this approach, as you can see from his (compiled) image below.

I will not discuss this topic further here as I am planning to come back to this topic when explaining the challenges of the future of PLM.

As Nigel said, they have a debate with one of their customers to replace the existing PLM tools or enhance the existing PLM tools. The challenge of moving from coordinated information towards connected data is a topic that we as a community should study.

Integration is about more than Model Format.

This was the presentation I have been waiting for. Mark Williams from Boeing had built the story together with Adrian Burton from Airbus. Nigel Shaw, in the previous session, already pointed to the challenge of managing linked information. Mark elaborated further about the model-based approach for system definition.

All content was related to the understanding that we need a  model-based information infrastructure for the future because storing information in documents (the coordinated approach) is no longer viable for complex systems. Mark ‘slide below says it all.

Mark stressed the importance of managing model information in context, and it has become a challenge.

Mark mentioned that 20 years ago, the IDC (International Data Corporation) measured Boeing’s performance and estimated that each employee spent 2 ½ hours per day. In 2018, the IDC estimated that this number has grown to 30 % of the employee’s time and could go up to 50 % when adding the effort of reusing and duplicating data.

The consequence of this would be that a full-service enterprise, having engineering, manufacturing and services connected, probably loses 70 % of its information because they cannot find it—an impressive number asking for “clever” ways to find the correct information in context.

It is not about just a full indexed search of the data, as some technology geeks might think. It is also about describing and standardizing metadata that describes the models. In that context, Mark walked through a list of existing standards, all with their pros and cons, ending up with the recommendation to use the ISO 10303-243 – MoSSEC standard.

MoSSEC standing for Modelling and Simulation information in a collaborative Systems Engineering Context to manage and connect the relationships between models.

MoSSEC and its implication for future digital enterprises are interesting, considering the importance of a model-based future. I am curious how PLM Vendors and tools will support and enable the standard for future interoperability and collaboration.

Additive Manufacturing
– not as simple as paper printing – yet

Andreas Graichen from Siemens Energy closed the day, coming back to the new technologies’ topic: Additive Manufacturing or in common language 3D Printing. Andreas shared their Additive Manufacturing experiences, matching the famous Gartner Hype Cycle. His image shows that real work needs to be done to understand the technology and its use cases after the first excitement of the hype is over.

Material knowledge was one of the important topics to study when applying additive manufacturing. It is probably a new area for most companies to understand the material behaviors and properties in an Additive Manufacturing process.

The ultimate goal for Siemens Energy is to reach an “autonomous” workshop anywhere in the world where gas turbines could order their spare parts by themselves through digital warehouses. It is a grand vision, and Andreas confirmed that the scalability of Additive Manufacturing is still a challenge.

For rapid prototyping or small series of spare parts, Additive Manufacturing might be the right solution. The success of your Additive Manufacturing process depends a lot on how your company’s management has realistic expectations and the budget available to explore this direction.

Conclusion

Day 1 was enjoyable and educational, starting and ending with a focus on disruptive technologies. The middle part related to data the data management concepts needed for a digital enterprise were the most exciting topics to follow up in my opinion.

Next week I will follow up with reviewing day 2 and share my conclusions. The PLM Road Map & PDT Spring 2021 conference confirmed that there is work to do to understand the future (of PLM).

 

Regularly (young) individuals approach me looking for advice to start or boost their PLM career. One of the questions the PLM Doctor is IN quickly could answer.

Before going further on this topic, there is also the observation that many outspoken PLM experts are “old.” Meanwhile, all kinds of new disruptive technologies are comping up.

Can these old guys still follow and advise on all trends/hypes?

My consultant’s answer is: “Yes and No” or “It depends”.

The answer illustrates the typical nature of a consultant. It is almost impossible to give a binary answer; still, many of my clients are looking for binary answers. Generalizing further, you could claim: “Human beings like binary answers”, and then you understand what is happening now in the world.

The challenge for everyone in the PLM domain is to keep an open mindset and avoid becoming binary. Staying non-binary means spending time to digest what you see, what you read or what you hear. Ask yourself always the question: Is it so simple? Try to imagine how the content you read fits in the famous paradigm: People, Processes and Tools. It would help if you considered all these aspects.

Learning by reading

I was positively surprised by Helena Gutierrez’s post on LinkedIn: The 8 Best PLM blogs to follow. First of all, Helena’s endorsement, explaining the value of having non-academic PLM information available as a foundation for her learnings in PLM.

And indeed, perhaps I should have written a book about PLM. However, it would be a book about the past. Currently, PLM is not stable; we are learning every day to use new technologies and new ways of working. For example, the impact and meaning of model-based enterprise.

However, the big positive surprise came from the number of likes within a few days, showing how valuable this information is for many others on their PLM journey. I am aware there are more great blogs out in the field, sometimes with the disadvantage that they are not in English and therefore have a limited audience.

Readers of this post, look at the list of 8 PLM blogs and add your recommended blog(s) in the comments.

Learning by reading (non-binary) is a first step in becoming or staying up to date.

Learning by listening

General PLM conferences have been an excellent way to listen to other people’s experiences in the past. Depending on the type of conference, you would be able to narrow your learning scope.

This week I started my preparation for the upcoming PLM Roadmap and PDT conference. Here various speakers will provide their insight related to “disruption,” all in the context of disruptive technologies for PLM.

Good news, also people and business aspects will be part of the conference.

Click on the image for the agenda and registration

My presentation with the title: DISRUPTION – EXTINCTION or still EVOLUTION? I will address all these aspects. We have entered a decisive decade to prove we can disrupt our old habits to save the planet for future generations.

It is challenging to be interactive as a physical conference; it is mainly a conference to get inspired or guided in your thinking about new PLM technologies and potential disruption.

Learning by listening and storing the content in your brain is the second step in becoming or staying up to date.

Learning by discussing

One of the best learnings comes from having honest discussions with other people who all have different backgrounds. To be part of such a discussion, you need to have at least some basic knowledge about the topic. This avoids social media-like discussions where millions of “experts” have an opinion behind the keyboard. (The Dunning-Kruger effect)

There are two upcoming discussions I want to highlight here.

1. Book review: How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.

On Thursday, May 13th, I will moderate a PLM Global Green Alliance panel discussion on Zoom to discuss Bill Gates’ book: “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster”. As you can imagine, Bill Gates is not known as a climate expert, more as a philanthrope and technology geek. However, the reviews are good.

What can we learn from the book as relevant for our PLM Global Green Alliance?

If you want to participate, read all the details on our PGGA website.

The PGGA core team members, Klaus Brettschneider, Lionel Grealou, Richard McFall, Ilan Madjar and Hannes Lindfred, have read the book.

 

2. The Modular Way Questions & Answers

In my post PLM and Modularity, I announced the option for readers of “The Modular Way” to ask the authors (Björn Eriksson & Daniel Strandhammar) or provide feedback on the book together with a small audience. This session is also planned to take place in May and to be scheduled based on the participants’ availability. At this moment, there are still a few open places. Therefore if you have read the book and want to participate, send an email to tacit@planet.nl or info@brickstrategy.com.

Learning by discussing is the best way to enrich your skills, particularly if you have Active Listening skills – crucial to have for a good discussion.

 

Conclusion

No matter where you are in your career, in the world of PLM, learning never stops. Twenty years of experience have no value if you haven’t seen the impact of digitalization coming. Make sure you learn by reading, by listening and by discussing.

Translate

Email subscription to this blog

Categories

%d bloggers like this: