You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Change’ tag.
Wow, what a tremendous amount of impressions to digest when traveling back from Jerez de la Frontera, where Share PLM held its first PLM conference. You might have seen the energy from the messages on LinkedIn, as this conference had a new and unique daring starting point: Starting from human-led transformations.
Look what Jens Chemnitz, Linda Kangastie, Martin Eigner, Jakob Äsell or Oleg Shilovitsky had to say.
For over twenty years, I have attended all kinds of PLM events, either vendor-neutral or from specific vendors. None of these conferences created so many connections between the attendees and the human side of PLM implementation.
We can present perfect PLM concepts, architectures and methodologies, but the crucial success factor is the people—they can make or break a transformative project.
Here are some of the first highlights for those who missed the event and feel sorry they missed the vibe. I might follow up in a second post with more details. And sorry for the reduced quality—I am still enjoying Spain and refuse to use AI to generate this human-centric content.
The scenery
Approximately 75 people have been attending the event in a historic bodega, Bodegas Fundador, in the historic center of Jerez. It is not a typical place for PLM experts, but an excellent place for humans with an Andalusian atmosphere. It was great to see companies like Razorleaf, Technia, Aras, XPLM and QCM sponsor the event, confirming their commitment. You cannot start a conference from scratch alone.
The next great differentiator was the diversity of the audience. Almost 50 % of the attendees were women, all working on the human side of PLM.
Another brilliant idea was to have the summit breakfast in the back of the stage area, so before the conference days started, you could mingle and mix with the people instead of having a lonely breakfast in your hotel.
Now, let’s go into some of the highlights; there were more.
A warm welcome from Share PLM
Beatriz Gonzalez, CEO and co-founder of Share PLM, kicked off the conference, explaining the importance of human-led transformations and organizational change management and sharing some of their best practices that have led to success for their customers.
You might have seen this famous image in the past, explaining why you must address people’s emotions.
Working with Design Sprints?
Have you ever heard of design sprints as a methodology for problem-solving within your company? If not, you should read the book by Jake Knapp- Creator of Design Sprint.
Andrea Järvén, program manager at Tetra Pak and closely working with the PLM team, recommended this to us. She explained how Tetra Pak successfully used design sprints to implement changes. You would use design sprints when development cycles run too looong, Teams lose enthusiasm and focus, work is fragmented, and the challenges are too complex.
Instead of a big waterfall project, you run many small design sprints with the relevant stakeholders per sprint, coming step by step closer to the desired outcome.
The sprints are short – five days of the full commitment of a team targeting a business challenge, where every day has a dedicated goal, as you can see from the image above.
It was an eye-opener, and I am eager to learn where this methodology can be used in the PLM projects I contribute.
Unlocking Success: Building a Resilient Team for Your PLM Journey
Johan Mikkelä from FLSmidth shared a great story about the skills, capacities, and mindset needed for a PLM transformational project.
Johan brought up several topics to consider when implementing a PLM project based on his experiences.
One statement that resonated well with the audience of this conference was:
The more diversified your team is, the faster you can adapt to changes.
He mentioned that PLM projects feel like a marathon, and I believe it is true when you talk about a single project.
However, instead of a marathon, we should approach PLM activities as a never-ending project, but a pleasant journey that is not about reaching a finish but about step-by-step enjoying, observing, and changing a little direction when needed.
Strategic Shift of Focus – a human-centric perspective
Besides great storytelling, Antonio Casaschi‘s PLM learning journey at Assa Abloy was a perfect example of why PLM theory and reality often do not match. With much energy and experience, he came to Assa Abloy to work on the PLM strategy.
He started his PLM strategies top-down, trying to rationalize the PLM infrastructure within Assa Abloy with a historically bad perception of a big Teamcenter implementation from the past. Antonio and his team were the enemies disrupting the day-to-day life of the 200+ companies under the umbrella of Assa Abloy.
A logical lesson learned here is that aiming top-down for a common PLM strategy is impossible in a company that acquires another six new companies per quarter.
His final strategy is a bottom-up strategy, where he and the team listen to and work with the end-users in the native environments. They have become trusted advisors now as they have broad PLM experience but focus on current user pains. With the proper interaction, his team of trusted advisors can help each of the individual companies move towards a more efficient and future-focused infrastructure at their own pace.
The great lessons I learned from Antonio are:
- If your plan does not work out, be open to failure. Learn from your failures and aim for the next success.
- Human relations—I trust you, understand you, and know what to do—are crucial in such a complex company landscape.
Navigating Change: Lessons from My First Year as a Program Manager
Linda Kangastie from Valmet Technologies Oy in Finland shared her experiences within the company, from being a PLM key user to now being a PLM program manager for the PAP Digi Roadmap, containing PLM, sales tools, installed base, digitalization, process harmonization and change management, business transformation—a considerable scope.
The recommendations she gave should be a checklist for most PLM projects – if you are missing one of them, ask yourself what you are missing:
- THE ROADMAP and THE BIG PICTURE – is your project supported by a vision and a related roadmap of milestones to achieve?
- Biggest Buy-in comes with money! – The importance of a proper business case describing the value of the PLM activities and working with use cases demonstrating the value.
- Identify the correct people in the organization – the people that help you win, find sparring partners in your organization and make sure you have a common language.
- Repetition – taking time to educate, learn new concepts and have informal discussions with people –is a continuous process.
As you can see, there is no discussion about technology– it is about business and people.
To conclude, other speakers mentioned this topic too; it is about being honest and increasing trust.
The Future Is Human: Leading with Soul in a World of AI
Helena Guitierez‘s keynote on day two was the one that touched me the most as she shared her optimistic vision of the future where AI will allow us to be so more efficient in using our time, combined, of course, with new ways of working and behaviors.
As an example, she demonstrated she had taken an academic paper from Martin Eigner, and by using an AI tool, the German paper was transformed into an English learning course, including quizzes. And all of this with ½ day compared to the 3 to 4 days it would take the Share PLM team for that.
With the time we save for non-value-added work, we should not remain addicted to passive entertainment behind a flat screen. There is the opportunity to restore human and social interactions in person in areas and places where we want to satisfy our human curiosity.
I agree with her optimism. During Corona and the introduction of teams and Zoom sessions, I saw people become resources who popped up at designated times behind a flat screen.
The real human world was gone, with people talking in the corridors at the coffee machine. These are places where social interactions and innovation happen. Coffee stimulates our human brain; we are social beings, not resources.
Death on the Shop Floor: A PLM Murder Mystery
Rob Ferrone‘s theatre play was an original way of explaining and showing that everyone in the company does their best. The product was found dead, and Andrea Järvén alias Angie Neering, Oleg Shilovitsky alias Per Chasing, Patrick Willemsen alias Manny Facturing, Linda Kangastie alias Gannt Chartman and Antonio Casaschi alias Archie Tect were either pleaded guilty by the public jury or not guilty, mainly on the audience’s prejudices.
You can watch the play here, thanks to Michael Finocchiaro :
According to Rob, the absolute need to solve these problems that allow products to die is the missing discipline of product data people, who care for the flow, speed, and quality of product data. Rob gave some examples of his experience with Quick Release project he had worked with.
My learnings from this presentation are that you can make PLM stories fun, but even more important, instead of focusing on data quality by pushing each individual to be more accurate—it seems easy to push, but we know the quality; you should implement a workforce with this responsibility. The ROI for these people is clear.
Note: I believe that once companies become more mature in working with data-driven tools and processes, AI will slowly take over the role of these product data people.
Conclusion
I greatly respect Helena Guitierez and the Share PLM team. I appreciate how they demonstrated that organizing a human-centric PLM summit brings much more excitement than traditional technology—or industry-focused PLM conferences. Starting from the human side of the transformation, the audience was much more diverse and connected.
Closing the conference with a fantastic flamenco performance was perhaps another excellent demonstration of the human-centric approach. The raw performance, a combination of dance, music, and passion, went straight into the heart of the audience – this is how PLM should be (not every day)
There is so much more to share. Meanwhile, you can read more highlights through Michal Finocchiaro’s overview channel here.
In the last two weeks, I had some interesting observations and discussions related to the need to have a (PLM) vision. I placed the word PLM between brackets, as PLM is no longer an isolated topic in an organization. A PLM strategy should align with the business strategy and vision.
To be clear, if you or your company wants to survive in the future, you need a sustainable vision and a matching strategy as the times they are a changing, again!
I love the text: “Don’t criticize what you can’t understand” – a timeless quote.
First, there was Rob Ferrone’s article: Multi-view. Perspectives that shape PLM – a must-read to understand who to talk to about which dimension of PLM – and it is worth browsing through the comments too – there you will find the discussions, and it helps you to understand the PLM players.
Note: it is time that AI-generated images become more creative 😉
Next, there is still the discussion started by Gareth Webb, Digital Thread and the Knowledge Graph, further stirred by Oleg Shilovitsky.
Based on the likes and comments, it is clearly a topic that creates interaction – people are thinking and talking about it – the Digital Thread as a Service.
One of the remaining points in this debate is still the HOW and WHEN companies decide to implement a Digital Thread, a Knowledge Graph and other modern data concepts.
So far my impression is that most companies implement their digital enhancements (treads/graphs) in a bottom-up approach, not driven by a management vision but more like band-aids or places where it fits well, without a strategy or vision.
The same week, we, Beatriz Gonzáles and I, recorded a Share PLM podcast session with Paul Kaiser from MHP Americas as a guest. Paul is the head of the Digital Core & Technology department, where he leads management and IT consulting services focused on end-to-end business transformation.
During our discussion, Paul mentioned the challenge in engagements when the company has no (PLM) vision. These companies expect external consultants to formulate and implement the vision – a recipe for failure due to wrong expectations.
The podcast can be found HERE , and the session inspired me to write this post.
“We just want to be profitable“.
I believe it is a typical characteristic of small and medium enterprises that people are busy with their day-to-day activities. In addition, these companies rarely appoint new top management, which could shake up the company in a positive direction. These companies evolve …..
You often see a stable management team with members who grew up with the company and now monitor and guide it, watching its finances and competition. They know how the current business is running.
Based on these findings, there will be classical efficiency plans, i.e., cutting costs somewhere, dropping some non-performing products, or investing in new technology that they cannot resist. Still, minor process changes and fundamental organizational changes are not expected.
Most of the time, the efficiency plans provide single-digit benefits.
Everyone is happy when the company feels stable and profitable, even if the margins are under pressure. The challenge for this type of company without a vision is that they navigate in the dark when the outside world changes – like nowadays.
The world is changing drastically.
Since 2014, I have advocated for digital transformation in the PLM domain and explained it simply using the statement: From Coordinated to Connected, which already implies much complexity.
Moving from document/files to datasets and models, from a linear delivery model to a DevOps model, from waterfall to agile and many other From-To statements.
Moving From-To is a transformational journey, which means you will learn and adapt to new ways of working during the journey. Still, the journey should have a target, directed by a vision.
However, not many companies have started this journey because they just wanted to be profitable.
“Why should we go in an unknown direction?”
With the emergence of sustainability regulations, e.g., GHG and ESG reporting, carbon taxes, material reporting, and the Digital Product Passport, which goes beyond RoHS and REACH and applies to much more industries, there came the realization that there is a need to digitize the product lifecycle processes and data beyond documents. Manual analysis and validation are too expensive and unreliable.
At this stage, there is already a visible shift between companies that have proactively implemented a digitally connected infrastructure and companies that still see compliance with regulations as an additional burden. The first group brings products to the market faster and more sustainably than the second group because sustainability is embedded in their product lifecycle management.
And just when companies felt they could manage the transition from Coordinated to Coordinated and Connected, there was the fundamental disruption of embedded AI in everything, including the PLM domain.
- Large Language Models LLMs can go through all the structured and unstructured data, providing real-time access to information, which would take experts years of learning. Suddenly, everyone can behave experienced.
- The rigidness of traditional databases can be complemented by graph databases, which visualize knowledge that can be added and discovered on the fly without IT experts. Suddenly, an enterprise is no longer a collection of interfaced systems but a digital infrastructure where data flows – some call it Digital Thread as a Service (DTaaS)
- Suddenly, people feel overwhelmed by complexity, leading to fear and doing nothing, a killing attitude.
2014 The Economist – the onrushing wave
I cannot predict what will happen in the next 5 to 10 years, but I am sure the current change is one we have never seen before. Be prepared and flexible to act—to be on top of the wave, you need the skills to get there.
Building the vision
The image below might not be new to you, but it illustrates how companies could manage a complex change.
I will focus only on the first two elements, Vision and Skills, as they are the two elements we as individuals can influence. The other elements are partly related to financial and business constraints.
Vision and Skills are closely related because you can have a fantastic vision. Still, to realize the vision, you need a strategy driven by relevant skills to define and implement the vision. With the upcoming AI, traditional knowledge-based skills will suddenly no longer be a guarantee for future jobs.
AI brings a new dimension for everyone working in a company. To remain relevant, you must develop your unique human skills that make you different from robots or libraries. The importance of human skills might not be new, but now it has become apparent with the explosion of available AI tools.
Look at this 2013 table about predicted skills for the future – You can read the details in their paper, The Future of Employment, by Carl Benedikt Frey & Michael Osborne(2013) – click on the image to see the details.
In my 2015 PLM lectures, I joked when showing this image that my job as a PLM coach was secured, because you are a recreational therapist and firefighter combined.
It has become a reality, and many of my coaching engagements nowadays focus on explaining and helping companies formulate and understand their possible path forward. Helping them align and develop a vision of progressing in a volatile world – the technology is there, the skills and the vision are often not yet there.
Combining business strategy with in-depth PLM concepts is a relatively unique approach in our domain. Many of my peers have other primary goals, such as Rob Ferrone’s article: Multi-view. Perspectives that shape PLM explains.
And then there is …..
The Share PLM Summit 2025
Modern times need new types of information building and sharing, and therefore, I am eager to participate in the upcoming Share PLM Summit at the end of May in Jerez (Spain).
See the link to the event here: The Share PLM Summit 2025 – with the theme: Where People Take Center Stage to Drive Human-Centric Transformations in PLM and Lead the Future of Digital Innovation.
In my lecture, I will focus on how humans can participate in/anticipate this digital AI-based transformation. But even more, I look forward to the lectures and discussions with other peers, as more people-centric thought leaders and technology leaders will join us:
Quoting Oleg Shilovitsky:
PLM was built to manage data, but too often, it makes people work for the data instead of working the other way around. At Share PLM Summit 2025, I’ll discuss how PLM must evolve from rigid, siloed systems to intelligent, connected, and people-centric data architectures.
We need both, and I hope to see you at the end of May at this unique PLM conference.
Conclusion
We are at a decisive point of the digital transformation as AI will challenge people skills, knowledge and existing ways of working. Combined with a turbulent world order, we need to prepare to be flexible and resilient. Therefore instead of focusing on current best practices we need to prepare for the future – a vision developed by skilled people. How will you or your company work on that? Join us if you have questions or ideas.
In my business ecosystem, I have seen a lot of discussions about technical and architectural topics since last year that are closely connected to the topic of artificial intelligence. We are discussing architectures and solutions that will make our business extremely effective. The discussion is mostly software vendor-driven as vendors usually do not have to deal with the legacy, and they can imagine focusing on the ultimate result.
Legacy (people, skills, processes and data) is the mean inhibitor for fast forward in such situations, as I wrote in my previous post: Data, Processes and AI.
However, there are also less visible discussions about business efficiency – methodology and business models – and future sustainability.
These discussions are more challenging to follow as you need a broader and long-term vision, as implementing solutions/changes takes much longer than buying tools.
This time, I want to revisit the discussion on modularity and the need for business efficiency and sustainability.
Modularity – what is it?
Modularity is a design principle that breaks a system into smaller, independent, and interchangeable components, or modules, that function together as a whole. Each module performs a specific task and can be developed, tested, and maintained separately, improving flexibility and scalability.
Modularity is a best practice in software development. Although modular thinking takes a higher initial effort, the advantages are enormous for reuse, flexibility, optimization, or adding new functionality. And as software code has no material cost or scrap, modular software solutions excel in delivery and maintenance.
In the hardware world, this is different. Often, companies have a history of delivering a specific (hardware) solution, and the product has been improved by adding features and options where the top products remain the company’s flagships.
Modularity enables easy upgrades and replacements in hardware and engineering, reducing costs and complexity. As I work mainly with manufacturing companies in my network, I will focus on modularity in the hardware world.
Modularity – the business goal
How often have you heard that a business aims to transition from Engineering to Order (ETO) to Configure/Build to Order (BTO) or Assemble to Order (ATO)? Companies often believe that the starting point of implementing a PLM system is enough, as it will help identify commonalities in product variations, therefore leading to more modular products.
The primary targeted business benefits often include reduced R&D time and cost but also reduced risk due to component reuse and reuse of experience. However, the ultimate goal for CTO/ATO companies is to minimize R&D involvement in their sales and delivery process.
More options can be offered to potential customers without spending more time on engineering.
Four years ago, I discussed modularity with Björn Eriksson and Daniel Strandhammar, who wrote “The Modular Way” during the COVID-19 pandemic. I liked the book because it is excellent for understanding the broader scope of modularity along with marketing, sales, and long-term strategy. Each business type has its modularity benefits.
I had a follow-up discussion with panelists active in modularization and later with Daniel Strandhammar about the book’s content in this blog post: PLM and Modularity.
Next, I got involved with the North European Modularity Network (NEM) group, a group of Scandinavian companies that share modularization experiences and build common knowledge.
Historically, modularization has been a popular topic in North Europe, and meanwhile, the group is expanding beyond Scandinavia. Participants in the group focus on education-sharing strategies rather than tools.
The 2023 biannual meeting I attended hosted by Vestas in Ringkobing was an eye-opener for me.
We should work more integrated, not only on the topic of Modularity and PLM but also on a third important topic: Sustainability in the context of the Circular Economy.
You can review my impression of the event and presentation in my post: “The week after North European Modularity (NEM)“
That post concludes that Modularity, like PLM, is a strategy rather than an R&D mission. Integrating modularity topics into PLM conferences or Circular Economy events would facilitate mutual learning and collaboration.
Modularity and Sustainability
The PLM Green Global Alliance started in 2020 initially had few members. However, after significant natural disasters and the announcement of regulations related to the European Green Deal, sustainability became a management priority. Greenwashing was no longer sufficient.
One key topic discussed in the PLM Green Global Alliance is the circular economy moderated by CIMPA PLM services. The circular economy is crucial as our current consumption of Earth’s resources is unsustainable.
The well-known butterfly diagram from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation below, illustrates the higher complexity of a circular economy, both for the renewables (left) and the hardware (right)
In a circular economy, modularity is essential. The SHARE loop focuses on a Product Service Model, where companies provide services based on products used by different users. This approach requires a new business model, customer experience, and durable hardware. After Black Friday last year, I wrote about this transition: The Product Service System and a Circular Economy.
Modularity is vital in the MAINTAIN/PROLONG loop. Modular products can be upgraded without replacing the entire product, and modules are easier to repair. An example is Fairphone from the Netherlands, where users can repair and upgrade their smartphones, contributing to sustainability.
In the REUSE/REMANUFACTURE loop, modularity allows for reusing hardware parts when electronics or software components are upgraded. This approach reduces waste and supports sustainability.
The REFURBISH/REMANUFACTURE loop also benefits from modularity, though to a lesser extent. This loop helps preserve scarce materials, such as batteries, reducing the need for resource extraction from places like the moon, Mars, or Greenland.
A call for action
If you reached this point of the article, my question is now to reflect on your business or company. Modularity is, for many companies, a dream (or vision) and will become, for most companies, a must to provide a sustainable business.
Modularity does not depend on PLM technology, as famous companies like Scania, Electrolux and Vestas have shown (in my reference network).
Where is your company and its business offerings?
IMPORTANT:
If you aim to implement modularity to support the concepts of the Circular Economy, make sure you do it in a data-driven, model-based environment – here, technology counts.
Conclusion
Don’t miss the focus on the potential relevance of modularity for your company. Modularity improves business and sustainability, AND it touches all enterprise stakeholders. Technology alone will not save the business. Your thoughts?
Do you want to learn more about implementing PLM at an ETO space company?
Listen to our latest podcast: OHB’s Digital Evolution: Transforming Aerospace PLM with Lucía Núñez Núñez
Last week, my memory was triggered by this LinkedIn post and discussion started by Oleg Shilovitsky: Rethinking the Data vs. Process Debate in the Age of Digital Transformation and AI.
me, 1989
In the past twenty years, the debate in the PLM community has changed a lot. PLM started as a central file repository, combined with processes to ensure the correct status and quality of the information.
Then, digital transformation in the PLM domain became achievable and there was a focus shift towards (meta)data. Now, we are entering the era of artificial intelligence, reshaping how we look at data.
In this technology evolution, there are lessons learned that are still valid for 2025, and I want to share some of my experiences in this post.
In addition, it was great to read Martin Eigner’s great reflection on the past 40 years of PDM/PLM. Martin shared his experiences and insights, not directly focusing on the data and processes debate, but very complementary and helping to understand the future.
It started with processes (for me 2003-2014)
In the early days when I worked with SmarTeam, one of my main missions was to develop templates on top of the flexible toolkit SmarTeam.
For those who do not know SmarTeam, it was one of the first Windows PDM/PLM systems, and thanks to its open API (COM-based), companies could easily customize and adapt it. It came with standard data elements and behaviors like Projects, Documents (CAD-specific and Generic), Items and later Products.
On top of this foundation, almost every customer implemented their business logic (current practices).
And there the problems came …..
The implementations became too much a highly customized environment, not necessarily thought-through as every customer worked differently based on their (paper) history. Thanks to learning from the discussions in the field supporting stalled implementations, I was also assigned to develop templates (e.g. SmarTeam Design Express) and standard methodology (the FDA toolkit), as the mid-market customers requested. The focus was on standard processes.
You can read my 2009 observations here: Can chaos become order through PLM?
The need for standardization?
When developing templates (the right data model and processes), it was also essential to provide template processes for releasing a product and controlling the status and product changes – from Engineering Change Request to Engineering Change Order. Many companies had their processes described in their ISO 900x manual, but were they followed correctly?
In 2010, I wrote ECR/ECO for Dummies, and it has been my second most-read post over the years. Only the 2019 post The importance of EBOM and MBOM in PLM (reprise) had more readers. These statistics show that many people are, and were, seeking education on general PLM processes and data model principles.
It was also the time when the PLM communities discussed out-of-the-box or flexible processes as Oleg referred to in his post..
You would expect companies to follow these best practices, and many small and medium enterprises that started with PLM did so. However, I discovered there was and still is the challenge with legacy (people and process), particularly in larger enterprises.
The challenge with legacy
The technology was there, the usability was not there. Many implementations of a PLM system go through a critical stage. Are companies willing to change their methodology and habits to align with common best practices, or do they still want to implement their unique ways of working (from the past)?
“The embedded process is limiting our freedom, we need to be flexible”
is an often-heard statement. When every step is micro-managed in the PLM system, you create a bureaucracy detested by the user. In general, when the processes are implemented in a way first focusing on crucial steps with the option to improve later, you will get the best results and acceptance. Nowadays, we could call it an MVP approach.
I have seen companies that created a task or issue for every single activity a person should do. Managers loved the (demo) dashboard. It never lead to success as the approach created frustration at the end user level as their To-Do list grew and grew.
Another example of the micro-management mindset is when I worked with a company that had the opposite definition of Version and Revision in their current terminology. Initially, they insisted that the new PLM system should support this, meaning everywhere in the interface where Revisions was mentioned should be Version and the reverse for Version and Revision.
Can you imagine the cost of implementing and maintaining this legacy per upgrade?
And then came data (for me 2014 – now)
In 2015, during the pivotal PLM Roadmap/PDT conference related to Product Innovation Platforms, it brought the idea of framing digital transformation in the PLM domain in a single sentence: From Coordinated to Connected. See the original image from Marc Halpern here below and those who have read my posts over the years have seen this terminology’s evolution. Now I would say (till 2024): From Coordinated to Coordinated and Connected.
A data-driven approach was not new at that time. Roughly speaking, around 2006 – close to the introduction of the Smartphone – there was already a trend spurred by better global data connectivity at lower cost. Easy connectivity allowed PLM to expand into industries that were not closely connected to 3D CAD systems(CATIA, CREO or NX). Agile PLM, Aras, and SAP PLM became visible – PLM is no longer for design management but also for go-to-market governance in the CPG and apparel industry.
However, a data-driven approach was still rare in mainstream manufacturing companies, where drawings, office documents, email and Excel were the main information carriers next to the dominant ERP system.
A data-driven approach was a consultant’s dream, and when looking at the impact of digital transformation in other parts of the business, why not for PLM, too? My favorite and still valid 2014 image is the one below from Accenture describing Digital PLM. Here business and PLM come together – the WHY!
Again, the challenge with legacy
At that time, I saw a few companies linking their digital transformation to implementing a new PLM system. Those were the days the PLM vendors were battling for the big enterprise deals, sometimes motivated by an IT mindset that unifying the existing PDM/PLM systems would fulfill the digital dream. Science was not winning, but emotion. Read the PLM blame game – still actual.
One of my key observations is that companies struggle when they approach PLM transformation with a migration mindset. Moving from Coordinated to Connected isn’t just about technology—it’s about fundamentally changing how we work. Instead of a document-driven approach, organizations must embrace a data-driven, connected way of working.
The PLM community increasingly agrees that PLM isn’t a single system; it’s a strategy that requires a federated approach—whether through SaaS or even beyond it.
Before AI became a hype, we discussed the digital thread, digital twins, graph databases, ontologies, and data meshes. Legacy – people (skills), processes(rigid) and data(not reliable) – are the elephant in the room. Yet, the biggest challenge remains: many companies see PLM transformation as just buying new tools.
A fundamental transformation requires a hybrid approach—maintaining traditional operations while enabling multidisciplinary, data-driven teams. However, this shift demands new skills and creates the need to learn and adapt, and many organizations hesitate to take that risk.
In his Product Data Plumber Perspective on 2025. Rob Ferrone addressed the challenge to move forward too, and I liked one of his responses in the underlying discussion that says it all – it is hard to get out of your day to day comfort (and data):
Rob Ferrone’s quote:
Transformations are announced, followed by training, then communication fades. Plans shift, initiatives are replaced, and improvements are delayed for the next “fix-all” solution. Meanwhile, employees feel stuck, their future dictated by a distant, ever-changing strategy team.
And then there is Artificial Intelligence (2024 ……)
In the past two years, I have been reading and digesting much news related to AI, particularly generative AI.
Initially, I was a little skeptical because of all the hallucinations and hype; however, the progress in this domain is enormous.
I believe that AI has the potential to change our digital thread and digital twin concepts dramatically where the focus was on digital continuity of data.
Now this digital continuity might not be required, reading articles like The End of SaaS (a more and more louder voice), usage of the Fusion Strategy (the importance of AI) and an (academic) example, on a smaller scale, I about learned last year the Swedish Arrowhead™ fPVN project.
I hope that five years from now, there will not be a paragraph with the title Pity there was again legacy.
We should have learned from the past that there is always the first wave of tools – they come with a big hype and promise – think about the Startgate Project but also Deepseek.
Still remember, the change comes from doing things differently, not from efficiency gains. To do things differently you need an educated, visionary management with the power and skills to take a company in a new direction. If not, legacy will win (again)
Conclusion
In my 25 years of working in the data management domain, now known as PLM, I have seen several impressive new developments – from 2D to 3D, from documents to data, from physical prototypes to models and more. All these developments took decades to become mainstream. Whilst the technology was there, the legacy kept us back. Will this ever change? Your thoughts?
The pivotal 2015 PLM Roadmap / PDT conference
This year, I will celebrate 25 years since I started my company, TacIT, to focus on knowledge management. However, quickly, I was back in the domain of engineering data management, which became a broader topic, which we now call PLM.
Looking back, there have been significant changes in these 25 years, from systems to strategy, for documents to data, from linear to iterative. However, in this post, I want to look at my 2024 observations to see where we can progress. This brings me to the first observation.
PLM is human
Despite many academic and marketing arguments describing WHAT and WHY companies need specific business or software capabilities, there is, above all, the need for people to be personally inspired and connected. We want to belong to a successful group of people, teams and companies because we are humans, not resources.
It is all about people, which was also the title of my session during the March 2024 3DEXPERIENCE User Conference in Eindhoven (NL). I led a panel discussion on the importance of people with Dr. Cara Antoine, Daniel Schöpf, and Florens Wolters, each of whom actively led transformational initiatives within their companies.
Through Dr. Cara Antoine, e at Capgemini and a key voice for women in tech, I learned about her book Make It Personal. The book inspired me and motivated me to continue using a human-centric approach. Give this book to your leadership and read it yourself. It is practical, easy to read, and encouraging
Recently, in my post “PLM in real life and Gen AI“, I shared insights related to PLM blogs and Gen AI – original content is becoming increasingly the same, and the human touch is disappearing, while generating more and longer blogs.
I propose keeping Gen AI-generated text for the boring part of PLM and exploring the human side of PLM engagements in blogs. What does this mean? In the post, I also shared the highlights of the Series 2 podcast I did together with Helena Gutierrez from Share PLM. Every recording had its unique human touch and knowledge.
We are now in full preparation for Series 3—let us know who your hero is and who should be our guest in 2025!
PLM is business
One of the most significant changes I noticed in my PLM-related projects was that many of the activities connected the PLM activities to the company’s business objectives. Not surprisingly, it was mostly a bottom-up activity, explaining to the upper management that a modern, data-driven PLM strategy is crucial to achieving business or sustainability goals.
I wrote two long posts about these experiences. The first one,” PLM – business first,” zooms in on the changing mindset that PLM is not an engineering system anymore but part of a digital infrastructure that supports companies in achieving their business goals. The image below from Dr. Yousef Hooshmand is one of my favorites in this context. The 5 + 1 steps, where the extra step is crucial: Long Executive Commitment.
So, to get an executive commitment, you need to explain and address business challenges.
Executive commitment and participation can be achieved through a Benefits Dependency Network approach, as illustrated in this webinar I did with the Heliple-2 team, where we were justifying the business needs for Federated PLM. More about the Federated PLM part in the next paragraph.
Another point to consider is that when the PLM team is part of the IT organization (the costs side), they have a big challenge in leading or even participating in business discussions. In this context, read (again) Jan Bosch’s post: Structure Eats Strategy.
The second post, more recent, summarized the experiences I had with several customer engagements. The title says it all: “Don’t use the P**-word! – 5 lessons learned“, with an overlap in content with the first post.
Conclusion: A successful PLM strategy starts with the business and needs storytelling to align all stakeholders with a shared vision or goal.
PLM is technology
This year has seen the maturation of PLM technology concepts. We are moving away from a monolithic PLM system and exploring federated and connected infrastructures, preferably a mix of Systems of Record (the old PLMs/ERPs) and Systems of Engagement (the new ways of domain collaboration). The Heliple project manifests such an approach, where the vertical layers are Systems of Record, and the horizontal modules could be Systems of Engagement.
I had several discussions with typical System of Engagement vendors, like Colab (“Where traditional PLM fails”) and Partful (“Connected Digital Thread for Lower and Mid-market OEMs“), but I also had broader discussions during the PLM Roadmap PDT Europe conference – see: R-evolutionizing PLM and ERP and Heliple.
I also follow Dr. Jorg Fischer, who lectures about digital transformation concepts in the manufacturing business domain. Unfortunately, for a broader audience, Jörg published a lot in German, and typically, his references for PLM and ERP are based on SAP and Teamcenter. His blog posts are always interesting to follow – have a look at his recent blog in English: 7 keys to solve PLM & ERP.
Of course, Oleg Shilovitsky’s impressive and continuous flow of posts related to modern PLM concepts is amazing—just browse through his Beyond PLM home page to read about the actual topics happening in his PLM ecosystem or for example, read about modern technology concepts in this recent OpenBOM article.
Conceptually, we are making progress. As a commonality, all future concepts focus on data, not so much on managing documents—and here comes the focus on data.
PLM needs accurate data
In a data-driven environment, apps or systems will use a collection of datasets to provide a user with a working environment, either a dashboard or an interactive real-time environment. Below is my AI (Artist Impression) of a digital enterprise.
Of course, it seems logical; the data must be accurate as you no longer have control over access to the data in a data-driven environment. You can be accountable for the data; others can consume the data you created without checking its accuracy by your guidance.
Therefore, data governance and an excellent enterprise architecture are crucial to support the new paradigm:
The nearest source of truth supported by a single source of change
Quote: Yousef Hoohmand
Forget the Single Source of Truth idea, a previous century paradigm.
With data comes Artificial intelligence and algorithms that can play an essential role in your business, providing solutions or insights that support decision-making.
In 2024, most of us have been exploring the benefits of ChatGPT and Generative AI. You can describe examples of where AI could assist in every aspect of the product lifecycle. I saw great examples from Eaton, Ocado, and others at the PLM Roadmap/PDT Europe conference.
See my review here: A long week after the PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe conference.
Still, before benefiting from AI in your organization, it remains essential that the AI runs on top of accurate data.
Sustainability needs (digital) PLM
This paragraph is the only reverse dependency towards PLM and probably the one that is less in people’s minds, perhaps because PLM is already complex enough. In 2024, with the PLM Green Global Alliance, we had good conversations with PLM-related software vendors or service partners (aPriori, Configit, Makersite, PTC, SAP, Siemens and Transition Technologies PSC) where we discussed their solutions and how they are used in the field by companies.
We discovered here that most activities are driven by regulations, like ESG reporting, the new CSRD directive for Europe and the implementation of the Digital Product Passport. What is clear from all these activities is that companies need to have a data-driven PLM infrastructure to connect product data to environmental impacts, like carbon emissions equivalents.
Besides complying with regulations, I have been discussing the topic of Product-As-A-Service, or the Product Service System, this year, with excellent feedback from Dave Duncan. You can find a link to his speech: Improving Product Sustainability – PTC with PGGA.
Also, during the PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe conference, I discussed this topic, explaining that achieving a circular economy is a long-term vision, and the starting point is to establish a connected infrastructure within your organizations and with your customers/users in the field.
Sustainability should be on everyone’s agenda. From the interactions on LinkedIn, you can see that we prefer to discuss terms like PDM/PLM or eBOM/mBOM in the PLM domain. Very few connect PLM to sustainability.
Sustainability is a long-term mission; however, as we have seen from long-term missions, they can be overwhelmed by the day’s madness and short-term needs.
PLM is Politics
You might not expect this paragraph in my log, as most PLM discussions are about the WHAT and the WHY of a PLM solution or infrastructure. However, the most challenging part of PLM is the HOW, and this is the area that I am still focused on.
In the early days of mediating mainly in SmarTeam implementations, it became clear that the technology was not the issue. A crisis was often due to a lack of (technical) skills or methodology and misplaced expectations.
Unicorns & HIPPOs in an enterprise (Peter Vind)
When the way out became clear, politics often started. Sometimes, there was the HIPPO (HIghest Paid Person’s Opinion) in the company, as Peter Vind explained, or there was the blame game, which I described in my 2019 “The PLM blame game post”.
What makes it even more difficult is that people’s opinions in PLM discussions are often influenced by their friendly relations or history with a particular vendor or implementer from the past, which troubles a proper solution path.
These aspects are challenging to discuss, and nobody wants to discuss them openly. A company (and a country) must promote curiosity instead of adhering to mainstream thinking and working methods. In our latest Share PLM podcast, Brian Berger, a VP at Metso, mentions the importance of diversity within an organization.
“It is a constant element of working in a global business, and the importance cannot be overstated.”
This observation should make us think again when we want to simplify everything and dim the colors.
Conclusion
Initially, I thought this would be a shorter post, but again, it became a long read – therefore, perhaps ideal when closing 2024 and looking forward to activities and focus for 2025. Use this time to read books and educate yourself beyond the social media posts (even my blogs are limited 😉)
In addition, I noticed the build-up of this post was unconsciously influenced by Martijn Dullaart‘s series of messages titled “Configuration Management is ……”. Thanks, Martijn, for your continuous contributions to our joint passion – a digital enterprise where PLM and CM flawlessly interact based on methodology and accurate data.
With Black Friday as a black milestone again for our Western society, it is clear how difficult it is not to be influenced by such a massive attack on our consumer behavior.
Congratulations if you have shown you can resist the psychological and emotional pressure and did not purchase anything in the context of Black Friday. However, we must not forget that another big part of the world cannot afford this behavior as they do not have the means to do so – ultimate Black Friday might be their dream and a fast track to more enormous challenges.
The difference between our societies, all living on the same planet, is illustrated in the image below, illustrating the unfairness of this situation
What the image also shows is a warning that we all have to act, as step by step, we will reach planet boundaries for resources.
Or we need more planets, and I understand a brilliant guy is already working on it. Let’s go to Mars and enjoy life there.
For those generations staying on this planet, there is only one option: we need to change our economy of unlimited growth and reconsider how we use our natural resources.
The circular economy?
You are probably familiar with the butterfly diagram from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, where we see the linear process: Take-Make-Use-Waste in the middle.
This approach should be replaced by more advanced regeneration loops on the left side and the five R’s on the right: Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Refurbish and Recycle as the ultimate goal is the minimum leakage of Earth resources.
Closely related to the Circular Economy concept is the complementary Cradle-To-Cradle design approach. In this case, while designing our products, we also consider the end of life of a product as the start for other products to be created based on the materials used.
The CE butterfly diagram’s right side is where product design plays a significant role and where we, as a PLM community, should be active. Each loop has its own characteristics, and the SHARE loop is the one I focused on during the recent PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe conference in Gothenburg.
As you can see, the Maintain, Reuse, Refurbish and Recycle loops depend on product design strategies, in particular, modularity and, of course, depending on material choices.
It is important to note that the recycle loop is the most overestimated loop, where we might contribute to recycling (glass, paper, plastic) in our daily lives; however, other materials, like composites often with embedded electronics, have a much more significant impact.
Watch the funny meme in this post: “We did everything we could– we brought our own bags.”
The title of my presentation was: Products as a Service – The Ultimate Sustainable Economy?
You can find my presentation on SlideShare here.
Let’s focus on the remainder of the presentation’s topic: Product As A Service.
The Product Service System
Where Product As A Service might be the ultimate dream for an almost wasteless society, Ida Auken, a Danish member of the parliament, gave a thought-provoking lecture in that context at the 2016 World Economic Forum. Her lecture was summarized afterward as
“In the future, you will own nothing and be happy.”
A theme also picked up by conspiracy thinkers during the COVID pandemic, claiming “they” are making us economic slaves and consumers. With Black Friday in mind, I do not think there is a conspiracy; it is the opposite.
Closer to implementing everywhere Product as a Service for our whole economy, we might be going into Product Service Systems.
As the image shows, a product service system is a combination of providing a product with related services to create value for the customer.
In the ultimate format, the manufacturer owns the products and provides the services, keeping full control of the performance and materials during the product lifecycle. The benefits for the customer are that they pay only for the usage of the product and, therefore, do not need to invest upfront in the solution (CAPEX), but they only pay when using the solution (OPEX).
A great example of this concept is Spotify or other streaming services. You do not pay for the disc/box anymore; you pay for the usage, and the model is a win-win for consumers (many titles) and producers (massive reach).
Although the Product Service System will probably reach consumers later, the most significant potential is currently in the B2B business model, e.g., transportation as a service and special equipment usage as a service. Examples are popping up in various industries.
My presentation focused on three steps that manufacturing companies need to consider now and in the future when moving to a Product Service System.
Step 1: Get (digital) connected to your Product and customer
A foundational step companies must take is to create a digital infrastructure to support all stakeholders in the product service offering. Currently, many companies have a siloed approach where each discipline Marketing/Sales, R&D, Engineering, Manufacturing and Sales will have their own systems.
Digital Transformation in the PLM domain is needed here – where are you on this level?
But it is not only the technical silos that impede the end-to-end visibility of information. If there are no business targets to create and maintain the end-to-end information sharing, you can not expect it to happen.
Therefore, companies should invest in the digitalization of their ways of working, implementing an end-to-end digital thread AND changing their linear New Product Development process into a customer-driven DevOp approach. The PTC image below shows the way to imagine a end-to-end connected environment
In a Product Service System, the customer is the solution user, and the solution provider is responsible for the uptime and improvement of the solution over time.
As an upcoming bonus and a must, companies need to use AI to run their Product Service System as it will improve customer knowledge and trends. Don’t forget that AI (and Digital Twins) runs best on reliable data.
Step 2 From Product to Experience
A Product Service System is not business as usual by providing products with some additional services. Besides concepts such as Digital Thread and Digital Twins of the solution, there is also the need to change the company’s business model.
In the old way, customers buy the product; in the Product Service System, the customer becomes a user. We should align the company and business to become user-centric and keep the user inspired by the experience of the Product Service System.
In this context, there are two interesting articles to read:
- Jan Bosch: From Agile to Radical: Business Model
- Chris Seiler: How to escape the vicious circle in times of transformation?
The change in business model means that companies should think about a circular customer journey.
As the company will remain the product owner, it is crucial to understand what happens when the customers stop using the service or how to ensure maintenance and upgrades.
In addition, to keep the customer satisfied, it remains vital to discover the customer KPIs and how additional services could potentially improve the relationship. Again, AI can help find relationships that are not yet digitally established.
Step 2: From product to experience can already significantly impact organizations. The traditional salesperson’s role will disappear and be replaced by excellence in marketing, services and product management.
This will not happen quickly as, besides the vision, there needs to be an evolutionary path to the new business model.
Therefore, companies must analyze their portfolio and start experimenting with a small product, converting it into a product service system. Starting simple allows companies to learn and be prepared for scaling up.
A Product Service System also influences a company’s cash flow as revenue streams will change.
When scaling up slowly, the company might be able to finance this transition themselves. Another option, already happening, is for a third party to finance the Product Service System – think about car leasing, power by the hour, or some industrial equipment vendors.
Step 3 Towards a doughnut economy?
The last step is probably a giant step or even a journey. An economic mindset shift is needed from the ever-growing linear economy towards an economy flourishing for everyone within economic, environmental and social boundaries.
Unlimited growth is the biggest misconception on a planet reaching its borders. Either we need more planets, or we need to adjust our society.
In that context, I read the book “The Doughnut Economy” by Kate Raworth, a recognized thought leader who explains how a future economic model can flourish, including a circular economy, and you will be happy.
But we must abandon the old business models and habits – there will be a lot of resistance to change before people are forced to change. This change can take generations as the outside world will not change without a reason, and the established ones will fight for their privileges.
It is a logical process where people and boundaries will learn to find a new balance. Will it be in a Doughnut Economy, or did we overlook some bright other concepts?
Conclusion
The week after Black Friday and hopefully the month after all the Christmas presents, it is time to formulate your good intentions for 2025. As humans, we should consume less; as companies, we should direct our future to a sustainable future by exploring the potential of the Product Service System and beyond.
Recently, I noticed I reduced my blogging activities as many topics have already been discussed and repeatably published without new content.
With the upcoming of Gen AI and ChatGPT, I believe my PLM feeds are flooded by AI-generated blog posts.
The ChatGPT option
Most companies are not frontrunners in using extremely modern PLM concepts, so you can type risk-free questions and get common-sense answers.
I just tried these five questions:
- Why do we need an MBOM in PLM, and which industries benefit the most?
- What is the difference between a PLM system and a PLM strategy?
- Why do so many PLM projects fail?
- Why do so many ERP projects fail?
- What are the changes and benefits of a model-based approach to product lifecycle management?
Note: Questions 3 and 4 have almost similar causes and impacts, although slightly different, which is to be expected given the scope of the domain.
All these questions provided enough information for a blog post based on the answer. This illustrates that if you are writing about what are current best practices in the field – stop writing – the knowledge is there.
PLM in the real life
Recently, I had several discussions about which skills a PLM expert should have or which topics a PLM project should address.
PLM for the individual
For the individual, there are often certifications to obtain. Roger Tempest has been fighting for PLM professional recognition through certification – a challenge due to the broad scope and possibilities. Read more about Roger’s work in this post: PLM is complex (and we have to accept it?)
PLM vendors and system integrators often certify their staff or resellers to guarantee the quality of their solution delivery. Potential topics will be missed as they do not fulfill the vendor’s or integrator’s business purpose.
Asking ChatGPT about the required skills for a PLM expert, these were the top 5 answers:
- Technical skills
- Domain Knowledge
- Analytical and Problem-Solving Skills
- Interpersonal and Management Skills
- Strategic Thinking
It was interesting to see the order proposed by ChatGPT. Fist the tools (technology), then the processes (domain knowledge / analytical thinking), and last the people and business (strategy and interpersonal and management skills) It is hard to find individuals with all these skills in a single person.
Although we want people to be that broad in their skills, job offerings are mainly looking for the expert in one domain, be it strategy, communication, industry or technology. To get an impression of the skills read my PLM and Education concluding blog post.
Now, let’s see what it means for an organization.
PLM for the organization
In this area, one of the most consistent frameworks I have seen over time is CIMdata‘s Critical Dozen. Although they refer less to skills and more to trends and enablers, a company should invest in – educate people & build skills – to support a successful digital transformation in the PLM domain.
Oleg Shilovitsky’s recent blog post, The 12 “P” s of PLM Explained by Role: How to Make PLM More Than Just a Buzzword describes in an AI manner the various aspects of the term PLM, using 12 P**-words, reacting to Lionel Grealou’ s post: Making PLM Great Again
The challenge I see with these types of posts is: “OK, what to do now? Where to start?”
I believe where to start at the first place is a commonly agreed topic.
Everything starts from having a purpose and a vision. And this vision should be supported by a motivating story about the WHY that inspires everyone.
It is teamwork to define such a strategy, communicate it through a compelling story and make it personal. An excellent book to read is Make it personal from Dr. Cara Antoine – click on the image to discover the content and find my review why I believe this book is so compelling.
An important reason why we have to make transformations personal is because we are dealing first of all with human beings. And human beings are driven by emotions first even before ratio kicks in. We see it everywhere and unfortunately also in politics.
The HOW from real-life
This question cannot be answered by external PLM vendors, consultants or system integrators. Forget the Out-of-the-Box templates or the industry best practices (from the past), but start from your company’s culture and vision, introducing step-by-step new technologies, ways of working and business models to move towards the company’s vision target.
Building the HOW is not an easy journey, and to illustrate the variety of skills needed to be successful, I worked with Share PLM on their Series 2 podcast. You can find the complete overview here. There is one more to come to conclude this year.
Our focus was to speak only with PLM experts from the field, understanding their day-to-day challenges with a focus on HOW they did it and WHAT they learned.
And this is what we learned:
Unveiling FLSmidth’s Industrial Equipment PLM Transformation: From Projects to Products
It was our first episode of Series 2, and we spoke with Johan Mikkelä, Head of the PLM Solution Architecture at FLSmidth.
FLSmidth provides the global mining and cement industries with equipment and services, which is very much an ETO business moving towards CTO.
We discussed their Industrial Equipment PLM Transformation and the impact it has made.
Start With People: ABB’s Engineering Approach to Digital Transformation
We spoke with Issam Darraj, who shared his thoughts on human-centric digitalization. Issam talks us through ABB’s engineering perspective on driving transformation and discusses the importance of focusing on your people. Our favorite quote:
To grow, you need to focus on your people. If your people are happy, you will automatically grow. If your people are unhappy, they will leave you or work against you.
Enabling change: Exploring the human side of digital transformations
We spoke with Antonio Casaschi as he shared his thoughts on the human side of digital transformation. When discussing the PLM expert, he agrees it is difficult. Our favorite part here:
“I see a PLM expert as someone with a lot of experience in organizational change management. Of course, maybe people with a different background can see a PLM expert with someone with a lot of knowledge of how you develop products, all the best practices around products, etc. We first need to agree on what a PLM expert is, and then we can agree on how you become an expert in such a domain.”
Revolutionizing PLM: Insights from Yousef Hooshmand
With Dr. Yousef Hooshmand, writer of the paper: From a Monolithic PLM Landscape to a Federated Domain and
Data Mesh, with over 15 years of experience in the PLM domain, currently PLM Lead at NIO, we discussed the complexity of digital transformation in the PLM domain and How to deal with legacy, meanwhile implementing a user-centric, data-driven future.
My favorite quote: The End of Single Source of Truth, now it is about The nearest Source of Truth and Single Source of Change.
Steadfast Consistency: Delving into Configuration Management with Martijn Dullaart
Martijn Dullaart, who is the man behind the blog MDUX: The Future of CM and author of the book The Essential Guide to Part Re-Identification: Unleash the Power of Interchangeability and Traceability, has been active both in the PLM and CM domain and with Martijn the similarities and differences between PLM and CM and why organizations need to be educated on the topic of CM
The ROI of Digitalization: A Deep Dive into Business Value with Susanna Maëntausta
With Susanna Maëntausta, we discussed how to implement PLM in non-traditional manufacturing industries, such as the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
Susanna teaches us to ensure PLM projects are value-driven, connecting business objectives and KPIs to the implementation and execution steps in the field. Susanna is highly skilled in connecting people at any level of the organization.
Narratives of Change: Grundfos Transformation Tales with Björn Axling
As Head of PLM and part of the Group Innovation management team at Grundfos, Bjorn Axling aims to drive a Group-wide, cross-functional transformation into more innovative, more efficient, and data-driven ways of working through the product lifecycle from ideation to end-of-life.
In this episode, you will learn all the various aspects that come together when leading such a transformation in terms of culture, people, communication, and modern technology.
The Next Lane: Marel and the Digital Product Highway with Roger Kabo
With Roger Kabo, we discussed the steps needed to replace a legacy PLM environment and be open to a modern, federated, and data-driven future.
Step 1: Start with the end in mind. Every successful business starts with a clear and compelling vision. Your vision should be specific, inspiring, and something your team can rally behind.
Next, build on value and do it step by step.
How do you manage technology and data when you have a diverse product portfolio?
We talked with Jim van Oss, the former CIO of Moog Inc., for a deep dive into the fascinating world of technology transformations.
Key Takeaway: Evolving technology requires a clear strategy!
Jim underscores the importance of having a north star to guide your technological advancements, ensuring you remain focused and adaptable in an ever-changing landscape.
Diverse Products, Unified Systems: MBSE Insights with Max Gravel from Moog
We discussed the future of the Model-Based approaches with Max Gravel – MBD at Gulfstream and MBSE at Moog.
Max Gravel, Manager of Model-Based Engineering at Moog Inc., who is also active in modern CM, emphasizes that understanding your company’s goals with MBD is crucial.
There’s no one-size-fits-all solution: it’s about tailoring the strategy to drive real value for your business. The tools are available, but the key lies in addressing the right questions and focusing on what matters most. A great, motivating story containing all the aspects of digital transformation in the PLM domain/
Customer-First PLM: Insights on Digital Transformation and Leadership
With Helene Arlander, who has been involved in big transformation projects in the telecom industry. Starting from a complex legacy environment, implementing new data-driven approaches. We discussed the importance of managing product portfolios end-to-end and the leadership strategies needed for engaging people in charge.
We also discussed the role of AI in shaping the future of PLM and the importance of vision, diverse skill sets, and teamwork in transformations.
Conclusion
I believe the time of traditional blogging is over – current PLM concepts and issues can be easily queried by using ChatGPT-like solutions. The fundamental understanding of what you can do now comes from learning and listening to people, not as fast as a TikTok video or Insta message. For me, a podcast is a comfortable method of holistic learning.
Let us know what you think and who should be in Season 3
And for my friends in the United States – Happy Thanksgiving and think about the day after ……..
Those who have been following my blog posts over the past two years may have discovered that I consistently use the terms “System of Engagement” and “System of Record” in the context of a Coordinated and Connected PLM infrastructure.
Understanding the distinction between ‘System of Engagement‘ and ‘System of Record‘ is crucial for comprehending the type of collaboration and business purpose in a PLM infrastructure. When explored in depth, these terms will reveal the underlying technology.
The concept
A year ago, I had an initial discussion with three representatives of a typical system of engagement. I spoke with Andre Wegner from Authentise, MJ Smith from CoLab and Oleg Shilovitsky from OpenBOM. You can read and see the interview here: The new side of PLM? Systems of Engagement!
As a follow-up, I had a more detailed interview with Taylor Young, the Chief Strategy Officer of CoLab, early this year.
CoLab introduced the term Design Engagement System (DES), a new TLA. Based on a survey among 250 global engineering leaders, we discussed the business impact and value of their DES System of Engagement.
You can read the discussion here: Where traditional PLM fails.
The business benefits
I like that CoLab’s external messaging focuses on the business capabilities and opportunities, which reminded me of the old Steve Jobs recording: Don’t talk about the product!
There are so many discussions on LinkedIn about the usage of various technologies and concepts without a connection to the business. I’ll let you explore and decide.
It’s worth noting that while the ‘System of Engagement’ offers significant business benefits, it’s not a standalone solution. The right technology is crucial for translating these benefits into tangible business results.
This was a key takeaway from my follow-up discussion with MJ Smith, CMO at CoLab, about the difference between Configuration and Customization.
Why configurability?
Hello MJ, it has been a while since we spoke, and this time, I am curious to learn how CoLab fits in an enterprise PLM infrastructure, zooming in on the aspects of configuration and customization.
Using configurability, we can make a smaller number of features work for more use cases or business processes. Users do not want to learn and adopt many different features, and a system of engagement should make it easy to participate in a business process, even for infrequent or irregular users.
In design review, this means cross-functional teams and suppliers who are not the core users of CAD or PLM.
I agree, and for that reason, we see the discussion of Systems of Record (not user-friendly and working in a coordinated mode) and Systems of Engagement (focus on the end-user and working in a connected mode). How do you differentiate with CoLab?
From a technology perspective, as a System of Engagement, CoLab wants to eliminate complex, multi-step workflows that require users to navigate between 5-10+ different point solutions to complete a review.
For example:
- SharePoint for sending data
- CAD viewers for interrogating models
- PowerPoint for documenting markups – using screenshots
- Email or Teams meetings for discussing issues
- Spreadsheets for issue tracking
- Traditional PLM systems for consolidation
As mentioned before, the participants can be infrequent or irregular users from different companies. This gap exists today, with only 20% of suppliers and 49% of cross-functional teams providing valuable design feedback (see the 2023 report here). To prevent errors and increase design quality, NPD teams must capture helpful feedback from these SMEs, many of whom only participate in 2 to 3 design reviews each year.
Configuration and Customization
Back to the interaction between the System of Engagement (CoLab) and Systems or Records, in this case, probably the traditional PLM system. I think it is important to define the differences between Configuration and Customization first.
These would be my definitions:
- Configuration involves setting up standard options and features in software to meet specific needs without altering the code, such as adjusting settings or using built-in tools.
- Customization involves modifying the software’s code or adding new features to tailor it more precisely to unique requirements, which can include creating custom scripts, plugins, or changes to the user interface.
Both configuration and customization activities can be complex depending on the system we are discussing.
It’s also interesting to consider how configurability and customization can go hand in hand. What starts as a customization for one customer could become a configurable feature later.
For software providers like CoLab, the key is to stay close to your customers so that you can understand the difference between a niche use case – where customization may be the best solution – vs. something that could be broadly applicable.
In my definition of customization, I first thought of connecting to the various PLM and CAD systems. Are these interfaces standardized, or are they open to configuration and customization?
CoLab offers out-of-the-box integrations with PLM systems, including Windchill, Teamcenter, and 3DX Enovia. By integrating PLM with CoLab, companies can share files straight from PLM to CoLab without having to export or convert to a neutral format like STP.
By sharing CAD from PLM to CoLab, companies make it possible for non-PLM users – inside the company and outside (e.g., suppliers, customers) to participate in design reviews. This use case is an excellent example of how a system of engagement can be used as the connection point between two companies, each with its own system of record.
CoLab can also send data back to PLM. For example, you can see whether there is an open review on a part from within Windchill PLM and how many unresolved comments exist on a file shared with CoLab from PLM. Right now, there are some configurable aspects to our integrations – such as file-sharing controls for Windchill users.
We plan to invest more in the configurability of the PLM to DES interface. We will also invest in our REST API, which customers can use to build custom integrations if they like, instead of using our OOTB integrations.
To get an impression, look at this 90-second demo of CoLab’s Windchill integration for reference.
Talking about IP security is a topic that is always mentioned when companies interact with each other, and in particular in a connected mode. Can you tell us more about how Colab deals with IP protection?
CoLab has enterprise customers, like Schaeffler, implementing attribute-based access controls so that users can only access files in CoLab that they would otherwise have access to in Windchill.
We also have customers who integrate CoLab with their ERP system to auto-provision guest accounts for suppliers so they can participate in design reviews.
This means that the OEM is responsible for identifying which data is shared within CoLab. I am curious: Are these kinds of IP-sharing activities standardized because you have a configurable interface to the PLM/ERP, or is this still a customization?
I am referring to this point in the Federated PLM Interest Group. We discuss using OSLC as one of the connecting interfaces between the System of Record and the System of Engagement (Modules)—it’s still in the early days, as you can read in this article—but we see encouraging similar results. Is this a topic of attention for CoLab, too?
The interface between CoLab and PLM is the same for every customer (not custom) but can be configured with attributes-based access controls. End users who have access must explicitly share files. Further access controls can also be put in place on the CoLab side to protect IP.
We are taking a similar approach to integrating as outlined by OSLC. The OSLC concept is interesting to us, as it appears to provide a framework for better-supporting concepts such as versions and variants. The interface delegation concepts are also of interest.
Conclusion
It was great to dive deeper into the complementary value of CoLab as a typical System of Engagement. Their customers are end-users who want to collaborate efficiently during design reviews. By letting their customers work in a dedicated but connected environment, they are released from working in a traditional, more administrative PLM system.
Interfacing between these two environments will be an interesting topic to follow in the future. Will it be, for example, OSLC-based, or do you see other candidates to standardize?
The past two weeks have been a fascinating journey, delving into the intersection of Curiosity, Innovation, and modern PLM. Where many PLM-related posts are about the best products and the best architectures, there is also the “soft” angle – people and culture – which I believe is the most important to start from. Without the right people and the right mindset, every PLM implementation is ready to fail.
First, I worked with Stefaan van Hooydonk, the founder of the Global Curiosity Institute and author of the bestselling book The Workplace Curiosity Manifesto, on the article Curiosity as Guiding Principle for PLM Change, which explained the importance of Curiosity in the context of sustainable product development (PLM).
The intersection between Curiosity and modern PLM is Systems Thinking.
Systems Thinking: A Crucial 21st Century Skill for Sustainable Product Development, Driven by Curiosity.
Last week, I had the privilege of attending the CADCAM Lab conference in Ljubljana. In addition to my keynote, I was inspired by several presentations on the various aspects of digital transformation: the tools, possible enablement, and the needed mindset.
One of the highlights was the talk by Tanja Mohorič, the director for innovation culture and European projects in Slovene corporation Hidria and director of Slovene Automotive Cluster ACS. Tanja shared her insights on fostering Innovation, a crucial driver for a sustainable business as companies need to innovate in order to remain significant.
One of the intersections between Innovation and modern PLM is Curiosity
Innovation is defined as the process of bringing about new ideas, methods, products, services, or solutions that have significant positive impact and value.
Let’s zoom in on these two themes.
Curiosity
I knew Stefaan from his keynote at the PLM Road Map / PDT Europe 2022 conference; you can read my review from his session here: The week after PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe 2022.
It was an eye-opener for many of us focusing on the PLM domain. Stefaan’s message is that Curiosity is not only a personal skill; it is also something of a company’s culture. And in this age of rapid change, companies that embrace a culture of openness are outperforming their peers.
This time, on Earth Day (April 22nd), Stefaan organized an interactive webinar titled “Curiosity and the Planet,” which addressed the need for new technologies and approaches to living in a sustainable future. With my Green PLM-twisted mind, I immediately saw the overlap and intersection between our missions.
We decided to write an article together on this topic, in which we described a pathway for companies that want to develop more sustainable products or solutions, using Curiosity as one of the means.
As companies need to find their path to the digitization of their PLM infrastructure due to regulations, ESG reporting, and potentially the introduction of digital product passports and the circular economy, they need to act fast in an area not familiar to them.
Here, a curious organization will outperform the traditional, controlled enterprise.
You can read the full article here: Curiosity as Guiding Principle for PLM Change.
And as I know in our hasty society, not everyone will read the article although I think you should. For those who do not read the details, I close this topic with a quote from the article:
We define Curiosity as the mindset to challenge the status quo, explore, discover and learn.
Curiosity is often considered a trait linked to an individual, as exemplified by the constant questions of children or scientists. Groups of people or organizations can also be curious collectively. Research from INSEAD studying the level of Curiosity across the executive team uncovered that these teams are superior in two distinct ways: first, they are better at future Innovation, and second, they are better at optimizing their current operations. Curiosity on the executive team leads not only to future success but also to better short-term business results. Such teams create the perfect environment for their teams to thrive.
Change, however, is hard, and people are often left to their own devices; they prefer to perpetuate the known past rather than invite an unknown future. Curiosity helps us lean into uncertainty. It encourages us to slow down and observe whether the status quo we hold dear is still relevant. Curiosity is the prime catalyst for change. It invites open questions.
Innovation
There is often confusion between Invention and Innovation. Where invention is the “Eureka” moment where a new idea gets its shape, Innovation is the process of bringing new ideas, methods, products, services, or solutions to the market.
I presented this topic at the 2013 Product Innovation Conference in Berlin. The title of the presentation was PLM Loves Innovation, and you can find it here on SlideShare.
Looking back at the presentation, I realized we were thinking linear.
Concepts of an iterative approach, DevOps and a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) were not yet there. Meanwhile, thanks to digitization, bringing Innovation to the market has changed, which made Tanja Mohorič’s presentation a significant refresh of the mind.
Tanja’s lecture was illustrated by various quotes, you can find them in her presentation . Here are a few examples:
If you really look closely, most overnight successes took a long time. (Steve Jobs)
If you read Steve Jobs’s history at Apple, you will discover it has been a long journey. Although we like to praise the hero, there were many other, less visible people and patents involved in bringing Apple’s Innovation to the market.
Innovation is the ability to convert ideas into invoices (Lewis Dunacan)
What I like about this quote is that it also shows the importance of having a positive financial outcome. Bringing Innovation to the market is a matter of timing. If you are too early, there is no market for your product (yet), and if you are too late, the market share or margin is gone.
Minds are like parachutes – they only function when open (Thomas Dewar)
Curiosity and an open mind remain needed. The parachute quote is a quote to remember, mainly if you work in a traditional, established company. The risk of conformance is high, and a “we know the best” attitude might be killing the company, as we have seen from some management examples, like Kodak, NOKIA, and others.
Tanja’s presentation addressing the elements that support Innovation and those that kill Innovation can be found here: INNOVATION AS A PRECONDITION TO SUCCESS_Tanja Mohorič.
I want to close with one of the essential images that she shared, which is very aligned with how I see companies should consider their future, not as an evolutionary path to survive but as a journey to be inspired.
Coaching
As the CADCAM Group is a significant implementer of the Dassault Systèmes portfolio, my presentation about digital transformation in the PLM Domain was focused on their terminology and capabilities. You can find my presentation on SlideShare here.
However, the HOW part of digital transformation is more or less independent of the software. Here, it is about people, digital skills and new ways of working, which can be challenging for an existing enterprise as the linear business must continue. You might have seen the diagram below from previous blog posts/presentations.
The challenge I discussed with a few companies was how to apply it to your company.
First of all, I am still promoting McKinsey’s approach described in their article Our insights/toward an integrated technology operating model from 2017, which might not directly mention PLM at first glance. The way you work in your business should reflect the way you work with PLM and vice versa.
Where the traditional application-domain-based model reflects the existing coordinated business, the transformation takes place by learning to work first in small pods and later in digital product teams.
It seems evident that these new teams will be staffed with young, digital-native people. However, it remains crucial that these teams are coached by experienced people who help the team benefit from their vast experience.
It is like in soccer. Having eleven highly skilled young players does not make a team successful. Success depends on the combination of the trainer and the coach, and it is a continuous interaction throughout the season.
Therefore, a question for your organization: “Where are your coaches and trainers?”
I addressed this topic in my post: PLM 2020- The next decade (4 challenges), where the topic of changing organizations and retiring people became apparent.
As a rule of thumb, I would claim that you should try to give somebody with unique knowledge and who will be retiring in 2 – 3 years the role of coach and is no longer an operational mission. It may look less effective; however, it will contribute to a smooth knowledge transition from a coordinated to a coordinated and connected enterprise.
Conclusion
It was great to be inspired by some of the “soft” topics related to modern PLM. We like to discuss the usage of drawings, intelligent part numbers, the EBOM, MBOM, and SBOM or a cloud infrastructure. However I enjoyed discussing perhaps the most essential parts of a successful PLM implementation: the people, their motivation and their attitude to Curiosity and Innovation – their willingness to get inspired by the future.
What do you see as the most important topic to address in the future?
Two weeks ago, this post from Ilan Madjar drew my attention. He pointed to a demo movie, explaining how to support Smart Part Numbering on the 3DEXPERIENCE platform. You can watch the recording here.
I was surprised that Smart Part Numbering is still used, and if you read through the comments on the post, you see the various arguments that exist.
- “Many mid-market customers are still using it”
me: I think it is not only the mid-market – however, the argument is no reason to keep it alive. - “The problem remains in the customer’s desire (or need or capability) for change.”
me: This is part of the lowest resistance. - “User resistance to change. Training and management sponsorship has proven to be not enough.”
me: probably because discussions are feature-oriented, not starting from the business benefits. - “Cost and effort- rolling this change through downstream systems. The cost and effort of changing PN in PLM,ERP,MES, etc., are high. Trying to phase it out across systems is a recipe for a disaster.”
me: The hidden costs of maintaining Smart Numbers inside an organization are high and invisible, reducing the company’s competitiveness. - “Existing users often complain that it takes seconds to minutes more for unintelligent PN vs. using intelligent PN.”
me: If we talk about a disconnected user without access to information, it could be true if the number of Smart Numbers to comprehend is low.
There were many other arguments for why you should not change. It reminded me of the image below:
Smart Numbers related to the Coordinated approach
Smart Part Numbers are a characteristic of best practices from the past. Where people were working in different systems, the information moving from one system to another was done manually.
For example, it is re-entering the Bill of Materials from the PDM system into the ERP system or attaching drawings to materials/parts in the ERP system. The filename often reflects the material or part number in the latter case.
The problems with the coordinated, smart numbering approach are:
New people in the organization need to learn the meaning of the numbering scheme. This learning process reduces the flexibility of an organization and increases the risk of making errors.- Typos go unnoticed when transferring numbers from one system to another and only get noticed late when the cost of fixing the error might be 10 -100 fold.
- The argument that people will understand the meaning of a part is partly valid. A person can have a good guess of the part based on the smart part number; however, the details can be different unless you work every day with the same and small range of parts.
- Smart Numbers created a legacy. After Mergers and Acquisitions, there will be multiple part number schemes. Do you want to renumber old parts, meaning non-value-added, risky activities? Do you want to continue with various numbering schemes, meaning people need to learn more than one numbering schema – a higher entry barrier and risk of errors?
There were and still are many advanced smart numbering systems.
In one of my first PDM implementations in the Netherlands, I learned about the 12NC code system from Philips – introduced at Philips in 1963 and used to identify complete products, documentation, and bare components, up to the finest detail. At this moment, many companies in the Philips family (suppliers or offspring) still use this numbering system, illustrating that it is not only the small & medium enterprises that are reluctant to change their numbering system.
The costs of working with Smart Part Numbers are often unnoticed as they are considered a given.
From Coordinated to Connected
Digital transformation in the PLM domain means moving from coordinated practices toward practices that benefit from connected technology. In many of my blog posts, you can read why organizations need to learn to work in a connected manner. It is both for their business sustainability and also for being able to deal with regulations related to sustainability in the short term.
GHG reporting, ESG reporting, material compliance, and the DPP are all examples of the outside world pushing companies to work connected. Besides the regulations, if you are in a competitive business, you must be more efficient, innovative and faster than your competitors.
In a connected environment, relations between artifacts (datasets) are maintained in an IT infrastructure without requiring manual data transformations and people to process the data. In a connected enterprise, this non-value-added work will be reduced.
How to move away from Smart Numbering systems?
Several comments related to the Smart Numbering discussion mentioned that changing the numbering system is too costly and risky to implement and that no business case exists to support it. This statement only makes sense if you want your business to become obsolete slowly. Modern best practices based on digitization should be introduced as fast as possible, allowing companies to learn and adapt. There is no need for a big bang.
Start with mapping, prioritizing, and mapping value streams in your company. Where do we see the most significant business benefits related to cost of handling, speed, and quality?
Note: It is not necessary to start with engineering as they might be creators of data – start, for example, with the xBOM flow, where the xBOM can be a concept BOM, the engineering BOM, the Manufacturing BOM, and more. Building this connected data flow is an investment for every department; do not start from the systems.
- Next point: Do not rename or rework legacy data. These activities do not add value; they can only create problems. Instead, build new process definitions that do not depend on the smartness of the number.
Make sure these objects have, besides the part number, the right properties, the right status, and the right connections. In other words, create a connected digital thread – first internally in your company and next with your ecosystem (OEMs, suppliers, vendors)
- Next point: Give newly created artifacts a guaranteed unique ID independent of others. Each artifact has its status, properties and context. In this step, it is time to break any 1 : 1 relation between a physical part and a CAD-part or drawing. If a document gets revised, it gets a new version, but the version change should not always lead to a part number change. You can find many discussions on why to decouple parts and documents and the flexibility it provides.
- Next point: New generated IDs are not necessarily generated in a single system. The idea of a single source of truth is outdated. Build your infrastructure upon existing standards if possible. For example, the UID of the Digital Product Passport will be based on the ISO/IEC 15459 standard, similar to the UID for retail products managed by the GS1 standard. Or, probably closer to home, look into your computer’s registry, and you will discover a lot of software components with a unique ID that specific programs or applications can use in a shared manner.
When will it happen?
In January 2016, I wrote about “the impact of non-intelligent part numbers” and surprisingly almost 8 years later and we are still in the same situation.
I just read Oleg Shilovitsky’s post The Data Dilemma: Why Engineers and Manufacturing Companies Struggle to Find Time for Data Management where he mentions Legacy Systems and Processes, Overwhelming Workloads, Lack of (Data) Expertise, Short-Term Focus and Resource Constraints as inhibitors.
You probably all know the above cartoon. How can companies get out of this armor or habits? Will they be forced by the competition or by regulations. What do you think ?
Conclusion
Despite proven business benefits and insights, it remains challenging for companies to move toward modern, data-driven practices where Smart Number generators are no longer needed. When talking one-on-one to individuals, they are convinced a change is necessary, and they are pointing to the “others”.
I wish you all a prosperous 2024 and the power to involve the “others”.
@38 minute: you need to be able to unlearn
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
[…] (The following post from PLM Green Global Alliance cofounder Jos Voskuil first appeared in his European PLM-focused blog HERE.) […]
[…] recent discussions in the PLM ecosystem, including PSC Transition Technologies (EcoPLM), CIMPA PLM services (LCA), and the Design for…
Jos, all interesting and relevant. There are additional elements to be mentioned and Ontologies seem to be one of the…
Jos, as usual, you've provided a buffet of "food for thought". Where do you see AI being trained by a…
Hi Jos. Thanks for getting back to posting! Is is an interesting and ongoing struggle, federation vs one vendor approach.…