Tag Archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what makes it complex? What is behind PLM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anticipated sharing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sharing instead of document deliverables

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

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

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

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

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

Joe stating:

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

And at the other side, Kais stated:

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

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

Making the change happen

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with blockers

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

Some examples:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

The past month I had several discussions related to the complexity of PLM. Why is PLM conceived as complex? Why is it hard to sell PLM internally into an organization? Or, to phrase it differently: “What makes PLM so difficult for normal human beings. As conceptually it is not so complex”

So what makes it complex? What´s behind PLM?

The main concept behind PLM is that people share data. It can be around a project, a product, a plant through the whole lifecycle. In particular, during the early lifecycle phases, there is a lot of information that is not yet 100 percent mature. You could decide to wait till everything is mature before sharing it with others (the classical sequential manner). However, the chance of doing it right the first time is low. Several iterations between disciplines will be required before the data is approved. The more and more a company works sequential, the higher costs of changes are and the longer the time to market. Due to the rigidness of this sequential approach, it becomes difficult to respond rapidly to customer or market demands. Therefore, in theory (and it is not a PLM theory), concurrent engineering should reduce the number of iterations and the total time to market by working in parallel in not approved data yet.

PLM goes further, it is also about sharing of data, and as it started originally in the early phases of the lifecycle, the concept of PLM was often considered something related to engineering. And to be fair, most of the PLM (CAD-related) vendors have a high focus on the early stages of the lifecycle and strengthen this idea. However, sharing can go much further, e.g., early involvement of suppliers (still engineering) or support for after-sales/services (the new acronym SLM). In my recent blog posts, I discussed the concepts of SLM and the required data model for that.

Anticipated sharing

The complexity lies in the word “sharing”. What does sharing mean for an organization, where historically, every person was awarded for the knowledge he/she has/owned instead of being awarded for the knowledge this person made available and shared. Many so-called PLM implementations have failed to reach the sharing target as the implementation focus was on storing data per discipline and not necessarily storing data to become shareable and used by others. This is a huge difference.

Some famous (ERP) vendors claim if you store everything in their system, you have a “single version of the truth”. Sounds attractive. My garbage bin at home is also a place where everything ends up in a single place, but a garbage bin has not been designed for sharing, as another person has no clue and time to analyze what´s inside. Even data in the same system can be hidden from others as the way to find data is not anticipated.

Data sharing instead of document deliverables

The complexity of PLM is that data should be created and shared in a matter not necessarily the most efficient manner for a single purpose, however, with some extra effort, to make it usable and searchable for others. A typical example is drawings and document management, where the whole process for a person is focused on delivering a specific document. Ok for that purpose, but this document on its own becomes a legacy for the long term as you need to know (or remember) what´s inside the document.

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

This does not fit older generations and departmental-managed business units that are rewarded only on their individual efficiency. Have a look at this LinkedIn discussion where the two extremes are visible.

Joe stating:

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

And at the other side, Kais stated:

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

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

Making the change happen

Besides this LinkedIn discussion, I had discussions with several companies where my audience understood the data-centric approach. It was nice to be in the room together, sharing the ideas of what would be possible. However, the outside world is hard to convince, and here it is about change management.

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

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

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

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

The problem with blockers

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

Some examples:

A company I have been working with was eager to study their path to the future, which required more global collaboration, a competitive business model and a more customer-centric approach. After a long evaluation phase, they decided they needed PLM, which was new for most of the people in the company. Although the project team was enthusiastic, they were not able to pass the blockers for a change. Ironically enough, they lost a significant part of their business to companies that have implemented PLM. Defending the past is not a guarantee for the future.

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

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

Conclusion:

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