You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Digital Enterprise’ tag.
Last week I enjoyed visiting LiveWorx 2023 on behalf of the PLM Global Green Alliance. PTC had invited us to understand their sustainability ambitions and meet with the relevant people from PTC, partners, customers and several of my analyst friends. It felt like a reunion.
In addition, I used the opportunity to understand better their Velocity SaaS offering with OnShape and Arena. The almost 4-days event, with approximately 5000 attendees, was massive and well-organized.
So many people were excited that this was again an in-person event after four years.
With PTC’s broad product portfolio, you could easily have a full agenda for the whole event, depending on your interests.
I was personally motivated that I had a relatively full schedule focusing purely on Sustainability, leaving all these other beautiful end-to-end concepts for another time.
Here are some of my observations
Jim Heppelman’s keynote
The primary presentation of such an event is the keynote from PTC’s CEO. This session allows you to understand the company’s key focus areas.
My takeaways:
- Need for Speed: Software-driven innovation, or as Jim said, Software is eating the BOM, reminding me of my recent blog post: The Rise and Fall of the BOM. Here Jim was referring to the integration with ALM (CodeBeamer) and IoT to have full traceability of products. However, including Software also requires agile ways of working.
- Need for Speed: Agile ways of working – the OnShape and Arena offerings are examples of agile working methods. A SaaS solution is easy to extend with suppliers or other stakeholders. PTC calls this their Velocity offering, typical Systems of Engagement, and I spoke later with people working on this topic. More in the future.
- Need for Speed: Model-based digital continuity – a theme I have discussed in my blog post too. Here Jim explains the interaction between Windchill and ServiceMax, both Systems of Record for product definition and Operation.
- Environmental Sustainability: introducing Catherine Kniker, PTC’s Chief Strategy and Sustainability Officer, announcing that PTC has committed to Science Based Targets, pledging near-term emissions reductions and long-term net-zero targets – see image below and more on Sustainability in the next section.
- A further investment in a SaaS architecture, announcing CREO+ as a SaaS solution supporting dynamic multi-user collaboration (a System of Engagement)
- A further investment in the partnership with Ansys fits the needs of a model-based future where modeling and simulation go hand in hand.
You can watch the full session Path to the Future: Products in the Age of Transformation here.
Sustainability
The PGGA spoke with Dave Duncan and James Norman last year about PTC’s sustainability initiatives. Remember: PLM and Sustainability: talking with PTC. Therefore, Klaus Brettschneider and I were happy to meet Dave and James in person just before the event and align on understanding what’s coming at PTC.
We agreed there is no “sustainability super app”; it is more about providing an open, digital infrastructure to connect data sources at any time of the product lifecycle, supporting decision-making and analysis. It is all about reliable data.
Product Sustainability 101
On Tuesday, Dave Duncan gave a great introductory session, Product Sustainability 101, addressing Business Drivers and Technical Opportunities. Dave started by explaining the business context aiming at greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction based on science-based targets, describing the content of Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions.
The image above, which came back in several presentations later that week, nicely describes the mapping of lifecycle decisions and operations in the context of the GHG protocol.
Design for Sustainability (DfS)
On Wednesday, I started with a session moderated by James Norman titled Design for Sustainability: Harnessing Innovation for a Resilient Future. The panel consisted of Neil D’Souza (CEO Makersite), Tim Greiner (MD Pure Strategies), Francois Lamy (SVP Product Management PTC) and Asheen Phansey (Director ESG & Sustainability at PagerDuty). You can find the topic discussed below:
Some of the notes I took:
- No specific PLM modules are needed, LCA needs to become an additional practice for companies, and they rely on a connected infrastructure.
- Where to start? First, understand the current baseline based on data collection – what is your environmental impact? Next, decide where to start
- The importance of Design for Service – many companies design products for easy delivery, not for service. Being able to service products better will extend their lifetime, therefore reducing their environmental impact (manufacturing/decommissioning)
- There Is a value chain for carbon data. In addition, suppliers significantly impact reaching net zero, as many OEMs have an Assembly To Order process, and most of the emissions are done during part manufacturing.
DfS: an example from Cummins
Next, on Wednesday, I attended the session from David Genter from Cummins, who presented their Design for Sustainability (DfS) project.
Dave started by sharing their 2030 sustainability goals:
- On Facilities and Operations: A reduction of 50 % of GHG emissions, reducing water usage by 30 %, reducing waste by 25 % and reducing organic compound emissions by 50%
- Reducing Scope 3 emissions for new products by 25%
- In general, reducing Scope 3 emissions by 55M metric tons.
The benefits for products were documented using a standardized scorecard (example below) to ensure the benefits are real and not based on wishful thinking.
Many motivated people wanted to participate in the project, and the ultimate result demonstrated that DfS has both business value for Cummins and the environment.
The project has been very well described in this whitepaper: How Cummins Made Changes to Optimize Product Designs for the Environment – a recommended case study to read.
Tangible Strategies for Improving Product Sustainability
The session was a dialogue between Catherine Kniker and Dave Duncan, discussing the strategies to move forward with Sustainability.
They reiterated the three areas where we as a PLM community can improve: Material choice and usage, Addressing Energy Emissions and Reducing Waste. And it is worth addressing them all, as you can see below – it is not only about carbon reduction.
It was an informative dialogue going through the different aspects of where we, as an engineering/ PLM community, can contribute. You can watch their full dialog here: Tangible Strategies for Improving Product Sustainability.
Conclusion
It was encouraging to see that at such an event as LiveWorx, you could learn about Sustainability and discuss Sustainability with the audience and PTC partners. And as I mentioned before, we need to learn to measure (data-driven / reliable data), and we need to be able to work in a connected infrastructure (digital thread) to allow design, simulation, validation and feedback to go hand in hand. It requires adapting a business strategy, not just a tactical solution. With the PLM Global Green Alliance, we are looking forward to following up on these.
NOTE: PTC covered the expenses associated with my participation in this event but did not in any way influence the content of this post – I made my tour fully independent through the conference and got encouraged by all the conversations I had.
Imagine you are a supplier working for several customers, such as big OEMs or smaller companies. In Dec 2020, I wrote about PLM and the Supply Chain because it was an underexposed topic in many companies. Suppliers need their own PLM and IP protection and work as efficiently as possible with their customers, often the OEMs.
Most PLM implementations always start by creating the ideal internal collaboration between functions in the enterprise. Historically starting with R&D and Engineering, next expanding to Manufacturing, Services and Marketing. Most of the time in this logical order.
In these implementations, people are not paying much attention to the total value chain, customers and suppliers. And that was one of the interesting findings at that time, supported by surveys from Gartner and McKinsey:
- Gartner: Companies reported improvements in the accuracy of product data and product development as the main benefit of their PLM implementation. They did not see so much of a reduced time to market or reduced product development costs. After analysis, Gartner believes the real issue is related to collaboration processes and supply chain practices. Here the lead times did not change, nor did the number of changes.
- McKinsey: In their article, The Case for Digital Reinvention, digital supply chains were mentioned as the area with the potential highest ROI; however, as the image shows below, it was the area with the lowest investment at that time.
In 2020 we were in the middle of broken supply chains and wishful thinking related to digital transformation, all due to COVID-19.
Meanwhile, the further digitization in PLM (systems of engagement) and the new topic, Sustainability of the supply chain, became visible.
Therefore it is time to make a status again, also driven by discussions in the past few weeks.
The old “connected” approach (loose-loose).
A preferred way for OEMs in the past was to have the Supplier or partner directly work in their PLM environment. The OEM could keep control of the product development process and the incremental maturity of the BOM, where the Supplier could connect their part data and designs to the OEM environment. T
The advantage for the OEM is clear – direct visibility of the supplier data when available. The benefit for the Supplier could also be immediate visibility of the broader context of the part they are responsible for.
However, the disadvantages for a supplier are more significant. Working in the OEM environment exposes all your IP and hinders knowledge capitalization from the Supplier. Not a big thing for perhaps a tier 3 supplier; however, the more advanced the products from the Supplier are, the higher the need to have its own PLM environment.
Therefore the old connected approach is a loose-loose relationship in particular for the Supplier and even for the OEM (having less knowledgeable suppliers)
The modern “connected” approach (wins t.b.d.)
In this situation, the target infrastructure is a digital infrastructure, where datasets are connected in real-time, providing the various stakeholders in engagement access to a filtered set of data relevant to their roles.
In my terminology, I refer to them as Systems of Engagement, as the target is that all stakeholders work in this environment.
The counterpart of Systems of Engagement is the Systems of Record, which provides a product baseline, manufacturing baseline, and configuration baseline of information consumed by other disciplines.
These baselines are often called Bills of Information, and the traditional PLM system has been designed as a System of Record. Major Bills of Information are the eBOM, the mBOM and sometimes people talk about the sBOM(service BOM).
Typical examples of Systems of Engagement I have seen in alphabetical order are:
- Arena Solutions has a long-term experience in BOM collaboration between engineering teams, suppliers and contract manufacturers.
- CATENA-X might be a strange player in this list, as CATENA-X is more a German Automotive consortium targeting digital collaboration between stakeholders, ensuring security and IP protection.
- Colab is a provider of cloud-based collaboration software allowing design teams and suppliers to work in real time together.
- OnShape – a cloud-based collaborative product design environment for dispersed engineering teams and partners.
- OpenBOM – a SaaS solution focusing on BOM collaboration connected to various CAD systems along with design teams and their connected suppliers
These are some of the Systems of Engagement I am aware of. They focus on specific value streams that can improve the targeted time to market and product introduction efficiency. In companies with no extensive additional PLM infrastructure, they can become crucial systems of engagement.
The main challenge for these systems of engagement is how they will connect to traditional Systems or Records – the classical PLM systems that we know in the market (Aras, Dassault, PTC, Siemens).
Image on the left from a presentation done by Eric Herzog from SAAB at last year’s CIMdata/PDT conference.
You can read more about this here.
When establishing a mix of Systems of Engagement and Systems of Record in your organization digitally connected, we will see overall benefits. My earlier thoughts, in general, are here: Time to split PLM?
The almost Connected approach
As I mentioned, in most companies, it is already challenging to manage their internal System of Record, which is needed for current operations and the traceability of information. In addition, most of the data stored in these systems is document-driven, not designed for real-time collaboration. So how would these companies collaborate with their suppliers?
The Model-Based Enterprise
In the bigger image below, I am referring to an image published by Jennifer Herron from her book Re-use Your CAD, where she describes the various stages of interaction between engineering, manufacturing and the extended enterprise.
Her mission is to promote and educate organizations in moving to a Model-Based Definition and, in the long term, to a Model-Base Enterprise.
The ultimate target of information exchange in this diagram is that the OEM and the Supplier are separate entities. However, they can exchange Digital Product Definition Packages and TDPs over the web (electronically). In this exchange, we have a mix of systems of engagement and systems of record on the OEM and Supplier sides.
Depending on the type of industry, in my ecosystem of companies, many suppliers are still at level 2, dreaming or pushed to become level 3, illustrating there is a difficult job to do – learning new practices. And why would you move to the next level?
Every step can have significant benefits, as reported by companies that did this.
So what’s stopping your company from moving ahead? People, Processes, Skills, Work Pressure? It is one of the most common excuses: “We are too busy, no time to improve”.
A supply chain collaboration hub
On March 21, I discussed with Magnus Färneland from Eurostep their cloud-based PLM collaboration hub, ShareAspace. You can read the interview here: PLM and Supply Chain Collaboration
I believe this concept can be compelling for a connected enterprise. The OEM and the Supplier share (or connect) only the data they want to share, preferably based on the PLCS data schema (ISO 10303-239).
In a primitive approach, this can be BOM structures with related files; however, it could become a real model-based connection hub in the advanced mode. “
Now you ask yourself why this solution is not booming.
In my opinion, there are several points to consider:
- Who designs, operates and maintains the collaboration hub?
It is likely not the suppliers, and when the OEM takes ownership, they might believe there is no need for the extra hub; just use the existing PLM infrastructure. - Could a third party find a niche market for this? Eurostep has already been working on this for many years, but adopting the concept seems higher in de BIM or Asset Management domains. Here the owner/operator sees the importance of a collaboration hub.
A final remark, we are still far from a connected enterprise; concepts like Catena-X and others need to become mature to serve as a foundation – there is a lot of technology out there -now we need the skilled people and tested practices to use the right technology and tune solutions concepts.
Sustainability demands a connected enterprise.
I focused on the Supplier dilemma this time because it is one of the crucial aspects of a circular economy and sustainable product development.
Only by using virtual models of the To-Be products/systems can we seriously optimize them. Virtual models and Digital Twins do not run on documents; they require accurate data from anywhere connected.
You can read more details in my post earlier this year: MBSE and Sustainability or look at the PLM and Sustainability recording on our PLM Global Green Alliance YouTube channel.
Conclusion
Due to various discussions I recently had in the field, it became clear that the topic of supplier integration in a best-connected manner is one of the most important topics to address in the near future. We cannot focus longer on our company as an isolated entity – value streams implemented in a connected manner become a must.
And now I am going to enjoy Liveworx in Boston, learning, discussing and understanding more about what PTC is doing and planning in the context of digital transformation and sustainability. More about that in my next post: The week(end) after Liveworx 2023 (to come)
This month it is exactly 15 years ago that I started my blog, a little bit nervous and insecure. Blogging had not reached mainstream yet, and how would people react to my shared experiences?
The main driver behind my blog in 2008 was to share field experiences when implementing PLM in the mid-market.
As a SmarTeam contractor working closely with Dassault and IBM PLM, I learned that implementing PLM (or PDM) is more than a technology issue.
Discussing implementations made me aware of the importance of the human side. Customers had huge expectations with such a flexible toolkit, and implementers made money by providing customization to any user request.
No discussion if it was needed, as the implementer always said: “Yes, we can (if you pay)”.
The parallel tree
And that’s where my mediation started. At a particular moment, the customer started to get annoyed of again another customization. The concept of a “parallel tree,” a sync between the 3D CAD structure and the BOM, was many times a point of discussion.
So many algorithms have been invented to convert a 3D CAD structure into a manufacturing BOM. Designing glue and paint in CAD as this way it would appear in the BOM.
The “exploded” data model
A result of customizations that ended up in failure were the ones with a crazy data model, too many detailed classes, and too many attributes per class.
Monsters were created by some well-willingly IT departments collecting all the user needs, however unworkable by the end users. See my 2015 post here: The Importance of a PLM data model
The BOM concepts
While concepts and best practices have become stable for traditional PLM, where we talk more about a Product Information backbone, there is still considerable debate about this type of implementation. The leading cause for the discussion is that companies often start from their systems and newly purchased systems and then try to push the people and processes into that environment.
For example, see this recent discussion we had with Oleg Shilovitsky (PLM, ERP, MES) and others on LinkedIn.
These were the days before we entered into digital transformation in the PLM domain, and starting from 2015, you can see in my blog posts the mission. Exploring what a digital enterprise would look like and what the role of PLM will be.
The Future
Some findings I can already share:
- No PLM system can do it all – where historically, companies bought a PLM system; now, they have to define a PLM strategy where the data can flow (controlled) in any direction. The PLM strategy needs to be based on value streams of connected data between relevant stakeholders supported by systems of engagement. From System to Strategy.
- Master Data Management and standardization of data models might still be a company’s internal activity (as the environment is stable). Still, to the outside world/domains, there is a need for flexible connections (standard flows / semantic web). From Rigid to Flexible.
- The meaning of the BOM will change for coordinated structures towards an extract of a data-driven PLM environment, where the BOM mainly represents the hardware connected to software releases. Configuration management practices must also change (see Martijn – and the Rise and Fall of the BOM). From Placeholders to Baselines.
- Digital Transformation in the PLM domain is not an evolution of the data. Legacy data has never been designed to be data-driven; migration is a mission impossible. Therefore there is a need to focus on a hybrid environment with two modes: enterprise backbone (System of Record) and product-centric infrastructure (Systems of Engagements). From Single Source of Truth to Authoritative Source of Truth.
Switching Gears
Next week I have reached the liable age for my Dutch pension, allowing me to switch gears.
Instead of driving in high-performance mode, I will start practicing driving in a touristic mode, moving from points of interest to other points of interest while caring for the environment.
Here are some of the topics to mention at this moment.
Reviving the Share PLM podcast
Together with the Share PLM team, we decided to revive their podcast as Season 2. I referred to their podcast last year in my PLM Holiday thoughts 2022 post.
The Share PLM team has always been the next level of what I started alone in 2008. Sharing and discussing PLM topics with interest on the human side, supporting organizational change through targeted e-learning deliverables based on the purpose of a PLM implementation. People (first), Processes (needed) and the Tools (how) – in this order.
In Season 2 of the podcast, we want to discuss with experienced PLM practitioners the various aspects of PLM – not only success stories you often hear at PLM conferences.
Experience is what you get when you do not get what you expect.
And PLM is a domain where experience with people, processes and tools counts.
Follow our podcast here, subscribe to it on your favorite platform and feel free to send us questions. Besides the longer interviews, we will also discuss common questions in separate recordings or as a structured part of the podcast.
Sustainability!
I noticed from my Sustainability related blog posts that they resonate less with my blogging audience. I am curious about the reason behind this.
Does it mean in our PLM community, Sustainability is still too vague and not addressed in the reader’s daily environment? Or is it because people do not see the relation to PLM and are more focused on carbon emissions, greenhouse gasses and the energy transition – a crucial part of the sustainable future that currently gets much attention?
I just discovered this week I just read this post: CEO priorities from 2019 until now: What has changed? As the end result shows below, sustainability has been ranked #7 in 2019, and after some ups and downs, it is still at priority level #7. This is worrying me as it illustrates that at the board level, not so much has changed, despite the increasing understanding of the environmental impact and the recent warnings from the climate. The warnings did not reach the boardrooms yet.
In addition, I will keep on exploring the relationship between PLM and Sustainability, and in that context, I am looking forward to my learnings and discussions at the upcoming PTC Liveworx event in Boston. Do I see yo there?
Here I hope to meet with their sustainability thought leaders and discuss plans to come up with concrete activities related to PLM and Sustainability.
Somehow it is similar to the relationship between Digital Transformation and the PLM domain. Although we talk already for over 10 years about the digitalization of the entire business; in the PLM domain, it has just started,
Awareness sessions
Companies have a considerable challenge translating a C-level vision into a successful business transformation supported by people active in the field.
Or on the opposite, highly motivated people in the organization see the opportunity to improve their current ways of working dramatically due to digitization.
However, they struggle with translating their deep understanding into messages and actions that are understood and supported by the executive management. In the past ten years, I have been active in various transformational engagements, serving as a “translator” between all stakeholders. I will continue this work as it is a unique way to coach companies, implementers and software vendors to understand each other.
Conclusions
Fifteen years of blogging has brought me a lot – constantly forcing yourself to explain what you observe around you and what it means for the PLM domain. My purpose in sharing these experiences with you in a non-academic matter has led to a great network of people and discussions. Some are very interactive, like Håkan Kårdén and Oleg Shilovitsky (the top two) and others, in an indirect way, provide their feedback.
Switching gears will not affect the blogging and the network – It might even lead to deeper insights as the time to observe and enjoy will be longer.
Keep your seatbelts fastened.
I am writing this post because one of my PLM peers recently asked me this question: “Is the BOM losing its position? He was in discussion with another colleague who told him:
“If you own the BOM, you own the Product Lifecycle”.
This statement made me think of ä recent post from Jan Bosch recent post: Product Development fallacy #8: the bill of materials has the highest priority.
Software becomes increasingly an essential part of the final product, and combined with Jan’s expertise in software development, he wrote this article. I recommend reading the full post (4 min read) and next browse through the comments.
If you cannot afford these 10 minutes, here is my favorite quote from the article:
An excessive focus on the bill of materials leads to significant challenges for companies that are undergoing a digital transformation and adopting continuous value delivery. The lack of headroom, high coupling and versioning hell may easily cause an explosion of R&D expenditure over time.
Where did the BOM focus come from? A historical overview related to the rise (and fall) of the BOM.
In the beginning, there was the drawing.
Before the era of computers, there was “THE drawing”, describing assemblies, subassemblies or parts. And on the drawing, you can find the parts list if relevant. This parts list was the first Bill of Material, describing the parts/materials shown on the drawing.
Next came MRP/ERP
With the introduction of the MRP system (Material Requirement Planning), it was the first step that by using computers, people could collect the material requirements for one system as data and process. Entering new materials/parts described on drawings was still a manual process, as well as referring to existing parts on the drawing. Reuse of parts was a manual process based on individual knowledge.
In the nineties, MRP evolved into ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), which included the MRP part and added resource and manufacturing planning and financial reporting.
The ERP system became the most significant IT system, the execution system of the company. As it was the first enterprise system implemented, it was the first moment we learned about implementation challenges – people change and budget overruns. However, as the ERP system brought visibility to the company’s execution, it became a “must-have” system for management.
The introduction of mainstream 2D CAD did not affect the company’s culture so much. Drawings became electronic drawings, and the methodology of the parts list on the drawing remained.
Sometimes the interaction with the MRP/ERP system was enhanced by an interface – sending the drawing BOM to ERP. The advantage of the interface: no manual transfer of data reducing typos and BOM errors. The disadvantages at that time: relatively expensive (connectivity between systems was a challenge) and mostly one direction.
And then there was PDM.
In parallel with the introduction of ERP systems, mainstream 3D CAD systems became affordable, particularly SolidWorks, Solid Edge and Inventor. These 3D CAD systems allow sharing of parts and assemblies in different products, and the PDM database was the first aid to support part reuse, versioning and standardization.
By extracting the parts from the assemblies and subassemblies, it was possible to generate a BOM structure in the PDM system to be transferred or typed into the ERP system. We did not talk about EBOM or MBOM then, as there was only one BOM in the ERP system, and the PDM system was a tool to feed the ERP system.
Many companies still have based their processes on this approach. ERP (read SAP nowadays) is the central execution system, and PDM is an external system. You might remember the story and image from my previous post about people, processes and tools. The bad practice example: Asking the ERP system to provide a part number when starting to design a part.
And then products started to change.
In the early 2000s, I worked with SmarTeam to define the E&E (Electronics and Electrical) template. One of the new concepts was to synchronize all design data coming from different disciplines to a single BOM structure.
It was the time we started to talk about the EBOM. A type of BOM, as the structure to consolidate all the design data, was based on parts.
The EBOM, most of the time, reflects the design intent in logical groups and sending the relevant parts in the correct order to the ERP system was a favorite expensive customization for service providers. How to transfer an engineering BOM view to an ERP system that only understands the manufacturing view?
Note: not all ERP systems have the data model to differentiate between engineering parts and manufacturing parts
The image below illustrates the challenge and the customer’s perception. 
The automated link between the design side (EBOM) and manufacturing side (MBOM) was a mission impossible – too many exceptions for the (spaghetti) code.
And then came the MBOM.
The identified issues connecting PDM and ERP led to the concept of implementing the MBOM in the PLM system. The MBOM in PLM is one of the characteristics of a PLM implementation compared to a PDM implementation. In a traditional PLM system, there is an interaction and connection between the EBOM and MBOM. EBOM parts should end up as MBOM parts. This interaction can be supported by automation, however, as it is in the same system, still leaving manual changes possible.
The MBOM structure in PLM could then be the information structure to transfer to the ERP system; however, there is more, as Jörg W. Fischer wrote in his provoking post-Die MBOM muss weg (The MBOM must go). He rightly points out (in German) that the MBOM is not a structure on its own but a combination of different views based on Assembly Drawings, Process Planning and Material Requirements.
His conclusion:
Calling these structures, MBOM is trying to squeeze all three structures into one. That usually doesn’t work and then leads to much more emotional discussions in the project. It also costs a lot of money. It is, therefore, better not to use the term MBOM at all.
And indeed, just having an MBOM in your PLM system might help you to prepare some of the manufacturing steps, the needed resources and parts. The MBOM result still has to be localized at the local plant where the manufacturing takes place. And here, the systems used are the ERP system and the MES system.
The main advantage of having the MBOM in the PLM system is the direct relation between specification and manufacturing intent, allowing manufacturing engineering to work collaboratively with engineering in the same environment.
- The first benefit is fewer iterations and a shorter time to production, thanks to early interaction and manufacturing involvement in the engineering process.
- The second benefit is: product knowledge is centralized in a single system. Consolidating your Product Knowledge in ERP does not make sense due to global localization and the missing capabilities to manage the iterative engineering processes on non-existing parts.
And then came the SBOM, the xBOM
Traditional PLM vendors and implementations kept using xBOM structures as placeholders for related specification data (mechanical designs, electrical, software deliverables, serialized products). Most of the time, related files.
And with this approach, talking about digital thread, PLM systems also touch on the concepts of Configuration Management.
I will not go into the details here but look at the two images by clicking on them and see a similar mindset.
It is about the traceability of information in structures and systems. These structures work well in a relatively static and linear product development and delivery environment, as illustrated below:
Engineering change and release processes are based on managing the changes in different structures from the left to the right.
And then came software!
Modern connected products are no longer mechanical products. The product’s functionality no longer depends on the mechanical properties but mainly on embedded electronics and software used. For example, look at the mechanical design of a telecom transmission tower – its behavior merely comes from non-mechanical components, and they can change over time. Still, the Bill of Material contains a lot of concrete and steel parts.
The ultimate example is comparing a Tesla (software on wheels) with a traditional car. For modern connected products, electronics and software need to be part of the solution. Software and electronics allow the product to be upgraded over time. Managing these products in the same manner as mechanical products is impossible, inefficient and therefore threatening your company’s future business.
I requote Jan Bosch:
An excessive focus on the bill of materials leads to significant challenges for companies that are undergoing a digital transformation and adopting continuous value delivery. The lack of headroom, high coupling and versioning hell may easily cause an explosion of R&D expenditure over time.
The model-based, connected enterprise
I will not solve the puzzle of the future in this post. You can read my observations in my series: The road to model-based and connected PLM. We need a new infrastructure with at least two modes. One that still serves as a System of Record, storing information in a traditional manner, like a Bill of Materials for the static parts, as not everyone and everything can be connected.
In addition, we need various Systems of Engagement that enable close to real-time interaction between products (systems) and relevant stakeholders for the engagement scope(multidisciplinary / consumers).
Digital twins are examples of such environments. Currently, these Systems of Engagement often work disconnected from the System of Record due to the lack of understanding of how to connect. (standard connectors? / OSLC?)
Our mission is to explore, as I wrote in my post Time to split PLM and drop our mechanical mindset.
And while I was finalizing this post, I read a motivating post from Jan Bosch again for all of you working on understanding and pushing the digital transformation in your eco-system.
The title: Be the protagonist of your life: 15 rules A starting point for more to come.
Conclusion
The BOM is no longer the master of the product lifecycle when it comes to managing connected products, where functionality mainly depends on software. BOM structures with related documents are just one of the extracted baselines from a data-driven, connected enterprise. This traditional PLM infrastructure requires other, non-BOM-driven structures to represent the actual status of a virtual or physical product.
The BOM is not dead, but there is more ………
Your thoughts?
Those who have read my blog posts over the years will have seen the image to the left.
The people, processes and tools slogan points to the best practice of implementing (PLM and CM) systems.
Theoretically, a PLM implementation will move smoothly if the company first agrees on the desired processes and people involved before a system implementation using the right tools.
Too often, companies start from their historical landscape (the tools – starting with a vendor selection) and then try to figure out the optimal usage of their systems. The best example of this approach is the interaction between PDM(PLM) and ERP.
PDM and ERP
Historically ERP was the first enterprise system that most companies implemented. For product development, there was the PDM system, an engineering tool, and for execution, there was the ERP system. Since ERP focuses on the company’s execution, the system became the management’s favorite.
The ERP system and its information were needed to run and control the company. Unfortunately, this approach has introduced the idea that the ERP system should also be the source of the part information, as it was often the first enterprise system for a company. The PDM system was often considered an engineering tool only. And when we talk about a PLM system, who really implements PLM as an enterprise system or was it still an engineering tool?
This is an example of Tools, Processes, and People – A BAD PRACTICE.
Imagine an engineer who wants to introduce a new part needed for a product to deliver. In many companies at the beginning of this century, even before starting the exercise, the engineer had to request a part number from the ERP system. This is implementation complexity #1.
Next, the engineer starts developing versions of the part based on the requirements. Ultimately the engineer might come to the conclusion this part will never be implemented. The reserved part number in ERP has been wasted – what to do?
It sounds weird, but this was a reality in discussions on this topic until ten years ago.
Next, as the ERP system could only deal with 7 digits, what about part number reuse? In conclusion, it is a considerable risk that reused part numbers can lead to errors. With the introduction of the PLM systems, there was the opportunity to bridge the gap between engineering and manufacturing. Now it is clear for most companies that the engineer should create the initial part number.
Only when the conceptual part becomes approved to be used for the realization of the product, an exchange with the ERP system will be needed. Using the same part number or not, we do not care if we can map both identifiers between these environments and have traceability.
It took almost 10 years from PDM to PLM until companies agreed on this approach, and I am curious about your company’s status.
Meanwhile, in the PLM world, we have evolved on this topic. The part and the BOM are no longer simple entities. Instead, we often differentiate between EBOM and MBOM, and the parts in those BOMs are not necessarily the same.
In this context, I like Prof. Dr. Jörg W. Fischer‘s framing:
EBOM is the specification, and MBOM is the realization.
(Leider schreibt Er viel auf Deutsch).
An interesting discussion initiated by Jörg last week was again about the interaction between PLM and ERP. The article is an excellent example of how potentially mainstream enterprises are thinking. PLM = Siemens, ERP = SAP – an illustration of the “tools first” mindset before the ideal process is defined.
There was nothing wrong with that in the early days, as connectivity between different systems was difficult and expensive. Therefore people with a 20 year of experience might still rely on their systems infrastructure instead of data flow.
But enough about the bad practice – let’s go to people, processes, (data), and Tools
People, Processes, Data and Tools?
I got inspired by this topic, seeing this post two weeks ago from Juha Korpela, claiming:
Okay, so maybe a hot take, maybe not, but: the old “People, Process, Technology” trinity is one of the most harmful thinking patterns you can have. It leaves out a key element: Data.
His full post was quite focused on data, and I liked the ” wrapping post” from Dr. Nicolas Figay here, putting things more in perspective from his point of view. The reply made me think about how this discussion fits into the PLM digital transformation discussion. How would it work in the two major themes I use to explain the digital transformation in the PLM landscape?
For incidental readers of my blog, these are the two major themes I am using:
- From Coordinated to Connected, based on the famous diagram from Marc Halpern (image below). The coordinated approach based on documents (files) requires a particular timing (processes) and context (Bills of Information) – it is the traditional and current PLM approach for most companies. On the other hand, the Connected approach is based on connected datasets (here, we talk about data – not files). These connected datasets are available in different contexts, in real-time, to be used by all kinds of applications, particularly modeling applications. Read about it in the series: The road to model-based and connected PLM.
. - The need to split PLM, thinking in System(s) of Record and Systems of Engagement. (example below) The idea behind this split is driven by the observation that companies need various Systems of Record for configuration management, change management, compliance and realization. These activities sound like traditional PLM targets and could still be done in these systems. New in the discussion is the System of Engagement which focuses on a specific value stream in a digitally connected manner. Here data is essential.I discussed the coexistence of these two approaches in my post Time to Split PLM. A post on LinkedIn with many discussions and reshares illustrating the topic is hot. And I am happy to discuss “split PLM architectures” with all of you.
These two concepts discuss the processes and the tools, but what about the people? Here I came to a conclusion to complete the story, we have to imagine three kinds of people. And this will not be new. We have the creators of data, the controllers of data and the consumers of data. Let’s zoom in on their specifics.
A new representation?
I am looking for a new simplifaction of the people, processes, and tools trinity combined with data; I got inspired by the work Don Farr did at Boeing, where he worked on a new visual representation for the model-based enterprise. You might have seen the image on the left before – click on it to see it in detail.
I wrote the first time about this new representation in my post: The weekend after CIMdata Roadmap / PDT Europe 2018
Related to Configuration Management, Martijn Dullaart and Martin Haket have also worked on a diagram with their peers to depict the scope of CM and Impact Analysis. The image leads to the post with my favorite quote: Communication is merely an exchange of information, but connections tell the story.
Below I share my first attempt to combine the people, process and tools trinity with the concepts of document and data, system(s) of record and system(s) of engagement. Trying to build the story. Look if you recognize the aspects of the discussion above, and feel free to develop enhancements.
I look forward to your suggestions. Like the understanding that we have to split PLM thinking, as it impacts how we look at implementations.
Conclusion
Digital transformation in the PLM domain is forcing us to think differently. There will still be processes based on people collecting, interpreting and combining information. However, there will also be a new domain of connected data interpreted by models and algorithms, not necessarily depending on processes.
Therefore we need to work on new representations that can be used to tell this combined story. What do you think? How can we improve?
This year started for me with a discussion related to federated PLM. A topic that I highlighted as one of the imminent trends of 2022. A topic relevant for PLM consultants and implementers. If you are working in a company struggling with PLM, this topic might be hard to introduce in your company.
Before going into the discussion’s topics and arguments, let’s first describe the historical context.
The traditional PLM frame.
Historically PLM has been framed first as a system for engineering to manage their product data. So you could call it PDM first. After that, PLM systems were introduced and used to provide access to product data, upstream and downstream. The most common usage was the relation with manufacturing, leading to EBOM and MBOM discussions.
The traditional ENOVIA PLM backbone
IT landscape simplification often led to an infrastructure of siloed solutions – PLM, ERP, CRM and later, MES. IT was driving the standardization of systems and defining interfaces between systems. System capabilities were leading, not the flow of information.
As many companies are still in this stage, I would call it PLM 1.0
PLM 1.0 systems serve mainly as a System of Record for the organization, where disciplines consolidate their data in a given context, the Bills of Information. The Bill of Information then is again the place to connect specification documents, i.e., CAD models, drawings and other documents, providing a Digital Thread.
Aras – Bills of Information creating the Digital Thread
The actual engineering work is done with specialized tools, MCAD/ECAD, CAE, Simulation, Planning tools and more. Therefore, each person could work in their discipline-specific environment and synchronize their data to the PLM system in a coordinated manner.
However, this interaction is not easy for some of the end-users. For example, the usability of CAD integrations with the PLM system is constantly debated.
Many of my implementation discussions with customers were in this context. For example, suppose your products are relatively simple, or your company is relatively small. In that case, the opinion is that the System or Record approach is overkill.
That’s why many small and medium enterprises do not see the value of a PLM backbone.
This could be true till recently. However, the threats to this approach are digitization and regulations.
Customers, partners, and regulators all expect more accurate and fast responses on specific issues, preferably instantly. In addition, sustainability regulations might push your company to implement a System of Record.
PLM as a business strategy
For the past fifteen years, we have discussed PLM more as a business strategy implemented with business systems and an infrastructure designed for sharing. Therefore, I choose these words carefully to avoid overhanging the expression: PLM as a business strategy.
The reason for this prudence is that, in reality, I have seen many PLM implementations fail due to the ambiguity of PLM as a system or strategy. Many enterprises have previously selected a preferred PLM Vendor solution as a starting point for their “PLM strategy”.
One of the most neglected best practices.
In reality, this means there was no strategy but a hope that with this impressive set of product demos, the company would find a way to support its business needs. Instead of people, process and then tools to implement the strategy, most of the time, it was starting with the tools trying to implement the processes and transform the people. That is not really the definition of business transformation.
In my opinion, this is happening because, at the management level, decisions are made based on financials.
Developing a PLM-related business strategy requires management understanding and involvement at all levels of the organization.
This is often not the case; the middle management has to solve the connection between the strategy and the execution. By design, however, the middle management will not restructure the organization. By design, they will collect the inputs van the end users.
And it is clear what end users want – no disruption in their comfortable way of working.
Halfway conclusion:
Rebranding PLM as a business strategy has not really changed the way companies work. PLM systems remain a System of Record mainly for governance and traceability.
To understand the situation in your company, look at who is responsible for PLM.
- If IT is responsible, then most likely, PLM is not considered a business strategy but more an infrastructure.
- If engineering is responsible for PLM, then you are still in the early days of PLM, the engineering tools to be consulted by others upstream or downstream.
Only when PLM accountability is at the upper management level, it might be a business strategy (assume the upper management understands the details)
Connected is the game changer
Connecting all stakeholders in an engagement has been a game changer in the world. With the introduction of platforms and the smartphone as a connected device, consumers could suddenly benefit from direct responses to desired service requests (Spotify, iTunes, Uber, Amazon, Airbnb, Booking, Netflix, …).
The business change: connecting real-time all stakeholders to deliver highly rapid results.
What would be the game changer in PLM was the question? The image below describes the 2014 Accenture description of digital PLM and its potential benefits.
Is connected PLM a utopia?
Marc Halpern from Gartner shared in 2015 the slide below that you might have seen many times before. Digital Transformation is really moving from a coordinated to a connected technology, it seems.
The image below gives an impression of an evolution.
I have been following this concept till I was triggered by a 2017 McKinsey publication: “our insights/toward an integrated technology operating model“.
This was the first notion for me that the future should be hybrid, a combination of traditional PLM (system of record) complemented with teams that work digitally connected; McKinsey called them pods that become product-centric (multidisciplinary team focusing on a product) instead of discipline-centric (marketing/engineering/manufacturing/service)
In 2019 I wrote the post: The PLM migration dilemma supporting the “shocking” conclusion “Don’t think about migration when moving to data-driven, connected ways of working. You need both environments.”
One of the main arguments behind this conclusion was that legacy product data and processes were not designed to ensure data accuracy and quality on such a level that it could become connected data. As a result, converting documents into reliable datasets would be a costly, impossible exercise with no real ROI.
The second argument was that the outside world, customers, regulatory bodies and other non-connected stakeholders still need documents as standardized deliverables.
The conclusion led to the image below.
Systems of Record (left) and Systems of Engagement (right)
Splitting PLM?
In 2021 these thoughts became more mature through various publications and players in the PLM domain.
We saw the upcoming of Systems of Engagement – I discussed OpenBOM, Colab and potentially Configit in the post: A new PLM paradigm. These systems can be characterized as connected solutions across the enterprise and value chain, focusing on a platform experience for the stakeholders.
These are all environments addressing the needs of a specific group of users as efficiently and as friendly as possible.
A System of Engagement will not fit naturally in a traditional PLM backbone; the System of Record.
Erik Herzog with SAAB Aerospace and Yousef Houshmand at that time with Daimler published that year papers related to “Federated PLM” or “The end of monolithic PLM.”. They acknowledged a company needs to focus on more than a single PLM solution. The presentation from Erik Herzog at the PLM Roadmap/PDT conference was interesting because Erik talked about the Systems of Engagement and the Systems of Record. He proposed using OSLC as the standard to connect these two types of PLM.
It was a clear example of an attempt to combine the two kinds of PLM.
And here comes my question: Do we need to split PLM?
When I look at PLM implementations in the field, almost all are implemented as a System of Record, an information backbone proved by a single vendor PLM. The various disciplines deliver their content through interfaces to the backbone (Coordinated approach).
However, there is low usability or support for multidisciplinary collaboration; the PLM backbone is not designed for that.
Due to concepts of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) and Model-Based Definition (MBD), there are now solutions on the market that allow different disciplines to work jointly related to connected datasets that can be manipulated using modeling software (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D,…).
These environments, often a mix of software and hardware tools, are the Systems of Engagement and provide speedy results with high quality in the virtual world. Digital Twins are running on Systems of Engagements, not on Systems of Records.
Systems of Engagement do not need to come from the same vendor, as they serve different purposes. But how to explain this to your management, who wants simplicity. I can imagine the IT organization has a better understanding of this concept as, at the end of 2015, Gartner introduced the concept of the bimodal approach.
Their definition:
Mode 1 is optimized for areas that are more well-understood. It focuses on exploiting what is known. This includes renovating the legacy environment so it is fit for a digital world. Mode 2 is exploratory, potentially experimenting to solve new problems. Mode 2 is optimized for areas of uncertainty. Mode 2 often works on initiatives that begin with a hypothesis that is tested and adapted during a process involving short iterations.
No Conclusion – but a question this time:
At the management level, unfortunately, there is most of the time still the “Single PLM”-mindset due to a lack of understanding of the business. Clearly splitting your PLM seems the way forward. IT could be ready for this, but will the business realize this opportunity?
What are your thoughts?
Happy New Year to all of you, and may this year be a year of progress in understanding and addressing the challenges ahead of us.
To help us focus, I selected three major domains I will explore further this year. These domains are connected – of course – as nothing is isolated in a world of System Thinking. Also, I wrote about these domains in the past, as usually, noting happens out of the blue.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of discussions related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), in particular ChatGPT (openAI). But can AI provide the answers? I believe not, as AI is mainly about explicit knowledge, the knowledge you can define by (learning) algorithms.
Expert knowledge, often called Tacit knowledge, is the knowledge of the expert, combining information from different domains into innovative solutions.
I started my company, TacIT, in 1999 because I thought (and still think) that Tacit knowledge is the holy grail for companies.
Let’s see with openAI how far we get ……
Digitization of the PLM domain
The PLM domain is suffering from its legacy data (documents), legacy processes (linear – mechanical focus) and legacy people (siloed). The statement is a generalization.
More details can be found in my blog series: The road to model-based and connected PLM.
So why should companies move to a model-based and connected approach for their PLM infrastructure?
There are several reasons why companies may want to move to a model-based and connected approach for their Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) infrastructure:
- Increased efficiency: A model-based approach allows for creating a digital twin of the product, which can be used to simulate and test various design scenarios, reducing the need for physical prototypes and testing. This can lead to faster and more efficient product development.
- Improved collaboration: A connected PLM infrastructure allows for better collaboration between different teams and departments, as all product-related information is stored in a central location and can be accessed by authorized personnel. This can improve communication and decision-making within the organization.
- Enhanced visibility: A model-based PLM system provides a single source of truth for all product-related data, giving management a clear and comprehensive view of the product development process. This can help identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement.
- Reduced risk: By keeping all product-related information in a centralized location, the risk of data loss or inconsistencies is reduced. This can help ensure that the product is developed in accordance with regulatory requirements and company standards.
- Increased competitiveness: A model-based and connected PLM infrastructure can help companies bring new products to market faster and with fewer errors, giving them a competitive advantage in their industry.
The text in italics was created by ChatGPT. After three learning cycles, this was the best answer I got. What we are missing in this answer is the innovative and transformative part that modern PLM can bring. Where is the concept of different ways of working, and new business models, both drivers for digitalization in many businesses?
Expert knowledge related to Federated PLM (or Killing the PLM Monolith) are topics you will not find through AI. This is, for me, the most interesting part to explore.
We see the need but lack a common understanding of the HOW.
Algorithms will not innovate; for that, you need Tacit intelligence & Curiosity instead of Artificial Intelligence. More exploration of Federated PLM this year.
PLM and Sustainability
Last year as part of the PLM Global Green Alliance, we spoke with six different PLM solution providers to understand their sustainability goals, targets, and planned support for Sustainability. All of them confirmed Sustainability has become an important issue for their customers in 2022. Sustainability is on everyone’s agenda.
Why is PLM important for Sustainability?
PLM is important for Sustainability because a PLM helps organizations manage the entire lifecycle of a product, from its conception and design to its manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal. PLM can be important for Sustainability because it can help organizations make more informed decisions about the environmental impacts of their products and take steps to minimize those impacts throughout the product’s lifecycle.
For example, using PLM, an organization can consider the environmental impacts of the materials that are used in a product, the energy consumption of the manufacturing process, the product’s end-of-life disposal, and other factors that may affect its overall Sustainability. By considering these factors early in the design process, organizations can make more sustainable choices that reduce the environmental impact of their products over their lifecycle.
In addition, PLM can help organizations track and measure the Sustainability of their products over time, allowing them to continuously improve and optimize their products for Sustainability. This can be particularly important for organizations that are looking to meet regulatory requirements or consumer demand for more sustainable products.
Again not a wrong answer, but there is no mention of supporting the concepts of the circular economy, the potential of using digital twins at the various lifecycle stages of the products to perform trade-off studies in the virtual world, or to analyze the product behavior from the physical world in the virtual world for optimization.
This is (again), for me, the most interesting part to explore.
We see the need but lack the sense of urgency on the NOW.
More on Sustainability this year.
PLM Education at all levels
Historically PLM was framed as an “engineering thing” or a system needed for R&D/Engineering. Modern PLM is much broader and, unfortunately, more hard to grasp. I support the CIMdata definition:
CIMdata defines PLM as:
-
A strategic business approach that applies a consistent set of business solutions that support the collaborative creation, management, dissemination, and use of product definition information
-
Supporting the extended enterprise (customers, design and supply partners, etc.)
-
Spanning from concept to end of life of a product or plant
-
Integrating people, processes, business systems, and information
And even here, I would say this definition is challenging as the scope is extensive and could touch a lot of activities inside an enterprise. As I wrote last year in my series of posts related to PLM and Education, there is:
Strategy education (what are the trends/potential of digital transformation in the business domain related to the company’s products)
Methodology/ Academic Education (independent from tools, what are the best practices, where they reside, potential lessons learned and pitfalls to avoid)
Organisational Change Management (the Education and support needed to enable a business transformation – modern PLM is a transformation enabler)
By asking ChatGPT for their opinion, we learn the following:
Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) education refers to training and development programs that focus on teaching individuals how to effectively manage the lifecycle of a product within an organization. This can include a wide range of topics, such as product design, development, and engineering; supply chain management; quality control and assurance; and product retirement and disposal.
Some specific types of PLM education that a company may need to provide to its employees include:
- Introduction to PLM: This type of training is designed to provide a general overview of PLM concepts and practices and may be suitable for employees who are new to the field or who have limited experience with PLM.
- PLM software training: Many companies use specialized PLM software to manage their product lifecycle processes. Employees who will be using this software will need training on how to use it effectively.
- Industry-specific PLM training: Depending on the industry in which a company operates, there may be specific PLM practices and regulations that employees need to be familiar with. For example, a company in the aerospace industry may need to provide training on PLM practices that are specific to the aerospace industry.
- Leadership and management training: For employees who are responsible for leading and managing PLM projects or teams, additional training in leadership and project management may be necessary.
Overall, the types of PLM education that a company needs will depend on the specific needs and goals of the organization, as well as the roles and responsibilities of its employees.
In general, we see from the answer that strategy and organizational change management beyond the tool are not considered.
This is precisely the area where a PLM Expert can help.
We see the need for Education, but we lack the willingness to invest in it.
Conclusion
It was an exciting exercise to combine my blogging thoughts with the answers from OpenAI. I am impressed by the given answers, knowing that the topics discussed about PLM are not obvious. On the other hand, I am not worried that AI will take over the job of the PLM consultant. As I mentioned before, the difference between Explicit Knowledge and Tacit Knowledge is clear, and business transformations will largely depend on the usage of Tacit knowledge.
I am curious about your experiences and will follow the topics mentioned in this post and write about them with great interest.
This week there was an interesting discussion on LinkedIn initiated by Alex Bruskin from Senticore Technologies. I have known Alex for over 20 years, starting from the SmarTeam days and later through encounters in the PLM space. Alex is a real techie on the outside but also a person with a very creative mind to connect technology to business.
You can see his LinkedIn featured posts here to get an impression.
Where is PLM @ Startups?
This time Alex shared an observation from an event organized by the Pittsburgh Robotics Network, where he spoke with several startups.
His point, and I quote Alex:
Then, I spoke to a number of presenters there, explaining Senticore capabilities and listening to their situation around engineering/ manufacturing.
– many startups offered an add-on to other platforms => an autonomous module for UAV/helicopter/Vehicle. Some offered robotic components or entire robots (robot-dog).
– all startups use #solidworks , and none use #catia or #nx
– none of them have a PLM system nor an MES. I am 90% certain none of them have ERP, either. They all are apparently using #excel for all these purposes.
– only a handful of them are considering getting a PLM system in the near future.
Read the full post here and the comments below to get a broader insight into the topic.
The PLM Doctor knows it all.
The point reminded me of an episode I did together with Helena Gutierrez from Share PLM last year. She asked the same question to the PLM Doctor.
Do you think PLM is only for big corporations or can startups also benefit from it?
You can see the conversation here:
Meanwhile, the PLM Doctor is unemployed due to the lack of incoming questions.
When looking at startups, I could see two paths. One is the traditional path based on historical mechanical PLM, and a second (potential) approach which is based on understanding the future complexity of the startup offering.
There are two paths – path #1
The first evolutionary path you might have seen a few times before in my blog post is the one depicted by Marc Halpern from Gartner in 2015. At that time, we started discussing Product Innovation Platforms and the new generation of PLM. You can see Marc’s slide below, which is still valid for most situations.
In the slide above, you see the startup company on the left side.
Often the main purpose of a startup company is to be visible on the market with their concept as fast as possible. Startups are often driven by a small group of multifunctional people developing a solution. In this approach, there is no place for people and reflection on processes as they are considered overhead.
Only when you target your solution in a strongly regulated environment, e.g., medical devices and aerospace, you need to focus on the process too.
Therefore it is logical that most startup companies focus on the tools to develop their solution. A logical path, as what could you do without tools? Next, the choice of the tools will be, most of the time, driven by the team’s experience and available skills in the market.
Again statistics show it is not likely that advanced tools like NX or CATIA will be chosen for the design part. More likely mid-market products like SolidWorks or Autodesk products. And for data management and reporting, the logical tools are the office tools, Excel, Word and Visio.
And don’t forget PowerPoint to sell the solution.
The role of investors is often also here to question investments that are not clearly understood or relevant at that time.
How a startup scales up very much depends on the choices they make for Repeatable business. This is the moment that a company starts to create its legacy. Processes and best practices need to be established and why you often see is that seasoned people join the company. These people have proven their skills in the past, and most likely, they are willing to repeat this.
And here comes the risk – experienced people come with a much better holistic overview of the product lifecycle aspects. They know what critical steps are needed to move the company to an Integrated business. These experiences are crucial; however, they should not become the new single standard.
Implementing the past is not a guarantee for success in a digital and connected future.
Implementing their past experiences would focus too much on creating a System of Record (PLM 1.0), which is crucial for configuration management, change management and compliance. However, it would also create a productivity dip for those developing the product or solution.
This is the same dilemma that very small and medium enterprises face. They function reasonably well in a Repeatable business. How much should they invest in an Integrated or Collaborating business approach?
Following the evolution path described by Marc Halpern always brings you to the point where technology changes from Coordinated to Connected. This is a challenging and immature topic, which I have discussed in my blog posts and during conferences.
See: The Challenges of a connected ecosystem for PLM or this full series of posts: The road to model-based and connected PLM.
There are two paths – path #2
Another path that startups could follow is a more forward-looking path, understanding that you need a coordinated and connected approach in the long term. For the fastest execution, you would like to work in a multidisciplinary mode in real time, exactly the characteristic of a startup.
However, in path #2, the startup should have a longer-term vision. Instead of choosing the obvious tools, they should focus on their company’s most important value streams. They have the opportunity to select integrated domains that are based on a connected, often model-based approach. Some examples of these integrated domains:
- An MBSE environment focusing on real-time interaction related to product architecture and solution components(RFLP)
- A connected product design environment, where in real-time a virtual product can be created, analyzed, and optimized – connected software might be relevant here.
- A connected product realization environment where product engineering and suppliers work together in real time.
All three examples are typical Systems of Engagement. The big difference with individual tools is that they already focus on multidisciplinary collaboration on a data-driven, model-based approach.
In addition, having these systems in place allows the startup company to invest separately in a System of Record(s) environment when scaling up. This could be a traditional PLM system combined with a Configuration Management System or an Asset Management System.
System of Record choices, of course, depends on the industry needs and the usage of the product in the field. We should not consider one system that serves all; it is an infrastructure.
In the image below, you see the concept of this approach described by Erik Herzog from SAAB Aeronautics during the recent PLM Roadmap / PDT Europe conference. You can read more details of this approach in this post: The Week after PLM Roadmap PDT Europe.
Note: SAAB is not a startup; therefore, they must deal with their legacy. They are now working on business sustainable concepts for the future: Heterogeneous and federated PLM.
My opinion: The heterogeneous and federated approach is the ultimate target for any enterprise. I already mentioned the importance of connected environments regarding digital twins and sustainability. Material properties, process environmental impacts and product behavior coming from the field will all work only efficiently if dealt with in a connected and federated manner.
Conclusion
The challenge for startups is that they often start without the knowledge and experience that multidisciplinary collaboration within a value stream is crucial for a connected future. This a topic that I would like to explore further with startups and peers in my ecosystem. What do you think? What are your questions? Join the conversation.
With great pleasure, I am writing this post, part of a tradition that started for me in 2014. Posts starting with “The weekend after …. “describing what happened during a PDT conference, later the event merged with CIMdata becoming THE PLM event for discussions beyond marketing.
For many of us, this conference was the first time after COVID-19 in 2020. It was a 3D (In person) conference instead of a 2D (digital) conference. With approximately 160 participants, this conference showed that we wanted to meet and network in person and the enthusiasm and interaction were great.
The conference’s theme, Digital Transformation and PLM – a call for PLM Professionals to redefine and re-position the benefits and value of PLM, was quite open.
There are many areas where digitization affects the way to implement a modern PLM Strategy.
Now some of my highlights from day one. I needed to filter to remain around max 1500 words. As all the other sessions, including the sponsor vignettes, were informative, they increased the value of this conference.
Digital Skills Transformation -Often Forgotten Critical Element of Digital Transformation
Day 1 started traditionally with the keynote from Peter Bilello, CIMdata’s president and CEO. In previous conferences, Peter has recently focused on explaining the CIMdata’s critical dozen (image below). If you are unfamiliar with them, there is a webinar on November 10 where you can learn more about them.
All twelve are equally important; it is not a sequence of priorities. This time Peter spent more time on Organisational Change management (OCM), number 12 of the critical dozen – or, as stated, the Digital Transformation’s Achilles heel. Although we always mention people are important, in our implementation projects, they often seem to be the topic that gets the less focus.
We all agree on the statement: People, Process, Tools & Data. Often the reality is that we start with the tools, try to build the processes and push the people in these processes. Is it a coincidence that even CIMdata puts Digital Skills transformation as number 12? An unconscious bias?
This time, the people’s focus got full attention. Peter explained the need for a digital skills transformation framework to educate, guide and support people during a transformation. The concluding slide below says it all.
Transformation Journey and PLM & PDM Modernization to the Digital Future
The second keynote of the day was from Josef Schiöler, Head of Core Platform Area PLM/PDM from the Volvo Group. Josef and his team have a huge challenge as they are working on a foundation for the future of the Volvo Group.
The challenge is that it will provide the foundation for new business processes and the various group members, as the image shows below:
As Josef said, it is really the heart of the heart, crucial for the future. Peter Bilello referred to this project as open-heart surgery while the person is still active, as the current business must go on too.
The picture below gives an impression of the size of the operation.
And like any big transformation project also, the Volvo Group has many questions to explore as there is no existing blueprint to use.
To give you an impression:
- How to manage complex documentation with existing and new technology and solution co-existing?
(My take: the hybrid approach) - How to realize benefits and user adoption with user experience principles in mind?
(My take: Understand the difference between a system of engagement and a system of record) - How to avoid seeing modernization as pure an IT initiative and secure that end-user value creation is visible while still keeping a focus on finalizing the technology transformation?
(My take: think hybrid and focus first on the new systems of engagement that can grow) - How to efficiently partner with software vendors to ensure vendor solutions fit well in the overall PLM/PDM enterprise landscape without heavy customization?
(My take: push for standards and collaboration with other similar companies – they can influence a vendor)
Note: My takes are just a starting point of the conversation. There is a discussion in the PLM domain, which I described in my blog post: A new PLM paradigm.
The day before the conference, we had a ½ day workshop initiated by SAAB and Eurostep where we discussed the various angles of the so-called Federated PLM.
I will return to that topic soon after some consolidation with the key members of that workshop.
Steering future Engineering Processes with System Lifecycle Management
Patrick Schäfer‘s presentation was different than the title would expect. Patrick is the IT Architect Engineering IT from ThyssenKrupp Presta AG. The company provides steering systems for the automotive industry, which is transforming from mechanical to autonomous driving, e-mobility, car-to-car connectivity, stricter safety, and environmental requirements.
The steering system becomes a system depending on hardware and software. And as current users of Agile PLM, the old Eigner PLM software, you can feel Martin Eigner’s spirit in the project.
I briefly discussed Martin’s latest book on System Lifecycle Management in my blog post, The road to model-based and connected PLM (part 5).
Martin has always been fighting for a new term for modern PLM, and you can see how conservative we are – for sometimes good reasons.
Still, ThyssenKrupp Presta has the vision to implement a new environment to support systems instead of hardware products. And in addition, they had to work fast to upgrade their current almost obsolete PLM environment to a new supported environment.
The wise path they chose was first focusing on a traditional upgrade, meaning making sure their PLM legacy data became part of a modern (Teamcenter) PLM backbone. Meanwhile, they started exploring the connection between requirements management for products and software, as shown below.
From my perspective, I would characterize this implementation as the coordinated approach creating a future option for the connected approach when the organization and future processes are more mature and known.
A good example of a pragmatic approach.
Digital Transformation in the Domain of Products and Plants at Siemens Energy
Per Soderberg, Head of Digital PLM at Siemens Energy, talked about their digital transformation project that started 6 – 7 years ago. Knowing the world of gas- and steam turbines, it is a domain where a lot of design and manufacturing information is managed in drawings.
The ultimate vision from Siemens Energy is to create an Industrial Metaverse for its solutions as the benefits are significant.
Is this target too ambitious, like GE’s 2014 Industrial Transformation with Predix? Time will tell. And I am sure you will soon hear more from Siemens Energy; therefore, I will keep it short. An interesting and ambitious program to follow. Sure you will read about them in the near future.
Accelerating Digitalization at Stora Enso
Stora Enso is a Finish company, a leading global provider of renewable solutions in packaging, biomaterials, wooden construction and paper. Their director of Innovation Services, Kaisa Suutari, shared Stora Enso’s digital transformation program that started six years ago with a 10 million/year budget (some people started dreaming too). Great to have a budget but then where to start?
In a very systematic manner using an ideas funnel and always starting from the business need, they spend the budget in two paths, shown in the image below.
Their interesting approach was in the upper path, which Kaisa focused on. Instead of starting with an analysis of how the problem could be addressed, they start by doing and then analyze the outcome and improve.
I am a great fan of this approach as it will significantly reduce the time to maturity. However, how much time is often wasted in conducting the perfect analysis?
Their Digi Fund process is a fast process to quickly go from idea to concept, to POC and to pilot, the left side of the funnel. After a successful pilot, an implementation process starts small and scales up.
There were so many positive takeaways from this session. Start with an MVP (Minimal Viable Product) to create value from the start. Next, celebrate failure when it happens, as this is the moment you learn. Finally, continue to create measurable value created by people – the picture below says it all.
It was the second time I was impressed by Stora Enso’s innovative approach. During the PI PLMX 2020 London, Samuli Savo, Chief Digital Officer at Stora Enso, gave us insights into their innovation process. At that time, the focus was a little bit more on open innovation with startups. See my post: The weekend after PI PLMx London 2020. An interesting approach for other businesses to make their digital transformation business-driven and fun for the people
A day-one summary
There was Kyle Hall, who talked about MoSSEC and the importance of this standard in a connected enterprise. MoSSEC (Modelling and Simulation information in a collaborative Systems Engineering Context) is the published ISO standard (ISO 10303-243) for improving the decision-making process for complex products. Standards are a regular topic for this conference, more about MoSSEC here.
There was Robert Rencher, Sr. Systems Engineer, Associate Technical Fellow at Boeing, talking about the progress that the A&D action group is making related to Digital Thread, Digital Twins. Sometimes asking more questions than answers as they try to make sense of the marketing definition and what it means for their businesses. You can find their latest report here.
There was Samrat Chatterjee, Business Process Manager PLM at the ABB Process Automation division. Their businesses are already quite data-driven; however, by embedding PLM into the organization’s fabric, they aim to improve effectiveness, manage a broad portfolio, and be more modular and efficient.
The day was closed with a CEO Spotlight, Peter Bilello. This time the CEOs were not coming from the big PLM vendors but from complementary companies with their unique value in the PLM domain. Henrik Reif Andersen, co-founder of Configit; Dr. Mattias Johansson, CEO of Eurostep; Helena Gutierrez, co-founder of Share PLM; Javier Garcia, CEO of The Reuse Company and Karl Wachtel, CEO, XPLM discussed their various perspectives on the PLM domain.
Conclusion
Already so much to say; sorry, I reached the 1500 words target; you should have been there. Combined with the networking dinner after day one, it was a great start to the conference. Are you curious about day 2 – stay tuned, and your curiosity will be rewarded.
Thanks to Ewa Hutmacher, Sumanth Madala and Ashish Kulkarni, who shared their pictures of the event on LinkedIn. Clicking on their names will lead you to the relevant posts.
It has been busy recently in the context of the PLM Global Green Alliances (PGGA) series: PLM and Sustainability, where we interview PLM-related software vendors, discussing their sustainability mission and offering.
We talked with SAP, Autodesk, and Dassault Systèmes and last week with Sustaira. Now the discussion was with the team from Aras. Aras is known as a non-traditional PLM player, having the following slogan on their website:
It is a great opening statement for our discussion. Let’s discover more.
Aras
The discussion was with Patrick Willemsen, Director of Technical Community EMEA and Matthias Fohrer, Director of Global Alliances EMEA at Aras. It was an interesting interview; as we discussed, Aras focuses on the digital thread, connecting data from all sources with an infrastructure designed to support a company in its PLM domain.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post, PLM and Sustainability – if we want to work efficiently on Sustainability, we need to have a data-driven and connected infrastructure.
And this made this discussion interesting to follow– please look/listen to the 30 minutes conversation below.
Slides shown during the interview and additional company information can be found HERE.
What we have learned
There were several interesting points in our discussion where we were aligned; first of all, the sustainable value of bringing your solutions to the cloud.
So we discussed the topic of Sustainability and the cloud, and it was interesting to read this week McKinsey’s post The green IT revolution: A blueprint for CIOs to combat climate change containing this quote:
“Moving to the cloud has more impact than optimizing data centers”– the article is quite applicable for Aras.
Next, I liked the message that it is all about collaboration between different parties.
As Matthias mentioned, nobody can do it on their own. According to Aras’ studies, 70% see Sustainability as an important area to improve themselves; nobody can do it on his own. Partnerships are crucial, as well as digital connections between the stakeholders. It is a plea for systems thinking in a connected manner, connecting to existing material libraries.
The third point we were aligned with is that PLM and Sustainability are a learning journey. As Patrick explained, it is about embracing the circular economy and learning step by step.
<– Click on the image to enlarge.
Want to learn more?
Aras has published several white papers and surveys and hosted webinars related to Sustainability. Here are a few of them:
Aras Survey Challenges 2022: From Sustainability to Digitalization
White Paper: The Circular Economy as a Model for the Future
Webinar: Greener Business, PLM, Traceability, and Beyond
Webinar: How PLM Paves the Way for Sustainability
Blog: The Circular Economy as a Model for the Future
Conclusions
It is clear that Aras provides an infrastructure for a connected enterprise. They combine digital PLM capabilities with the option to extend their reach by supporting sustainability-related processes, like systems thinking and lifecycle assessments. And as they mention, no one can do it alone; we depend on collaboration and learning for all stakeholders.
On more week to go – join us if you can – click here
Jos Voskuil's Weblog 
Jos, what a ride you have had! And looking at some of the spaghetti system architectures of even today's businesses,…
Congratulations, Jos! I'm very happy that you'll stay active in the PLM world and continue with your blogs - during…
Jos, welcome to the world of (part-time) retirement. Enjoy your AOW. Thanks Dick, you have the experience now - enjoy…
Thanks for all the valuable thoughts you have shared with us Jos, hope your 'new career' will bring you lots…
Great.. Congratulations on reaching yet another milestone... your blog is very thought proving and helps us to think in multiple…