Clarity on PLM

I had the chance to talk with … SAP and their customer Colgate in June, and learned that they have been hard at work improving the way manufacturers innovate. I was attending an SAP customer event on PLM to get updated on the progress of SAP’s PLM efforts. SAP continued to showcase their new PLM interfaces (now including Recipe Management for the process industries). But the thing that caught my attention most was a presentation on a newly co-developed solution for product innovation codenamed “Edison.” While this isn’t a formal SAP product as of yet, it shows some real promise on how companies can use social computing to drive innovation.

Note: Hopefully this wasn’t the only thing I learned in June, but things have certainly busy and I am behind in sharing!

What they are Doing

The solution, presented jointly by SAP and Colgate, is labeled as an “idea management” solution. To me that description falls a bit short of what they have developed. The solution handles a broad range of the innovation process, including:

• Idea Solicitation – to help target innovation as opposed to an all purpose suggestion box
• Idea Submission – to capture ideas from participants, including any supporting media they choose to submit
• Review and Processing – to help companies find the ideas they want to focus on, including search, filtering, sorting, tagging, and commenting
• Evaluation – allowing companies to score innovation and promote the good ones
• Execution – although this was a little less clear to me, this is the idea that the promoted ideas would flow into SAP’s PPM solution to turn into product development projects

The first thing that stood out to me as evidence that this was based on practical experience was that they didn’t assume that getting more ideas was better. I run into vendors all the time who like to talk about helping their manufacturing customers get more ideas. All of my research and interviews end up with the same conclusion from manufacturers: “I don’t need more ideas, I need help sorting through all of the junk to find the good ones!” Manufacturers want better ideas, and they want a way to make sense of the volumes of input they get. Kudos to Colgate and SAP for getting this right, which I have to imagine came from Colgate’s real-world experience in innovation.

Another thing I was impressed with was the objectives of the project. They set out to build something “simple, usable, flexible, and extendable.” As well thought out as the solution seems, it doesn’t appear that they over-designed it. The solution does not look or feel like SAP, but instead is a light, web-based experience. While this might not be appropriate for the highly transactional world of traditional SAP solutions, it is ideal for this application where broad use by untrained participants is a key to success. After all, you don’t want all of your innovation coming from a few trained insiders!

One final point that Colgate made which I think is important to consider, is that the solution is not only valuable in the front end of innovation but throughout the new product development process. In fact, early use of the tool at Colgate has helped solve supply chain issues like cost reduction.

Implications for Manufacturers

The use of social computing techniques to drive innovation is beginning to take shape. SAP is clearly interested in providing this capability, as are standalone innovation management solutions such as Brightidea, Imaginatik, Ideajam, and others.  Some upcoming research I will publish soon with Kalypso shows that many manufacturers are getting started in the use of social media in innovation, and those that did are going to increase usage next year. Times are changing, and it will be interesting to see who can best take advantage of this new opportunity.

So that is what I heard from SAP and Colgate, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it. Who else should I be paying attention to in this space?

I  had the chance to talk with … the Siemens PLM team earlier this week at their PLM Connection user’s conference. There are more announcements than I can cover here in one post, so I will concentrate on one major announcement – HD-PLM (High Definition PLM). Siemens is making a significant investment in modernizing the PLM experience with HD PLM. How will it help manufacturers get more from their PLM investment? And from a users’ perspective, can it give the PLM experience a boost to help this valuable corporate tool become a little more fun to work with?

The Announcement

To start, HD-PLM is more than just user experience. It is a new technology framework designed to unify the PLM experience across all of Siemens PLM’s products. In fact, it is planned to be the common client for all solutions. The interface is ( dare I say) cool, and looks like something anyone would be happy to work with. Think Web 2.0 meets PLM. Some examples:

• Highly graphical interface and navigation paradigm – let’s face it, this is how engineers and product developer think
• Cover flow – think iTunes-like interface to browse products)
• Role-based workspace
• Knowledge drill-down – think embedded visual reporting and business intelligence (BI)
• Proactive alerts

Bust Siemens is not just focusing on user experience. “High Definition” means more than what you see. They are are also investing heavily in a more rich definition (and validation) of products, particularly around systems engineering and mechatronics. Siemens will be making a lot more of the vast information in their systems available in an easily accessible, visual way. This is no small project for Siemens, and will provide significant value to Siemens PLM customers.

Implications for Manufacturers

What does this mean to manufacturers? To keep this short and simple:

• PLM will get more fun (and cool)
• Siemens PLM customers can feel comfortable that Siemens is still investing significantly in the future, and will enjoy the benefits of that investment over time as the new technology is released in upgrades of the products they already own
• Non-Siemens customers will have another reason to look at Siemens PLM products

So that’s what I hear from Siemens PLM, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them? I expect to hear a lot more about this in the future, I look forward to sharing it here.

I had the chance to talk with … PTC and their customers at last week’s PTCuser user conference. PTC has been busy, making a number of significant announcements. I will clearly not do justice to such a big event in one short blog, but I hope to hit the highlights for you and share my thoughts on the implications.

Note: Just to be clear, this is the last PTCuser because the conference is changing and will be renamed PlanetPTC.

What I Learned

PTC is still serious about mechanical CAD. They believe that there is still innovation happening in that space, and that it will be an interesting market in the future. Good news for mechanical engineers and those that are fans of PTC CAD solutions including Pro/Engineer and CoCreate. They announced Project Lightening which is a multi-year strategy to reinvent mechanical CAD, but promised deliverables in the near term. Not much information here yet, but from conversations with PTC product managers this is a big focus area. Expect some significant focus on making MCAD much easier to use.

PTC is pushing the PLM boundaries. PTC furthered InSight product analytics by announcing product cost analytics and expanded Arbortext into service documentation and instructions. By going into areas like product analytics (particularly in areas like cost), PTC continues to push the envelope. PTC has a broad vision for PLM, and has already stretched the scope of PLM to include product documentation and engineering calculations in the past, and they don’t appear to be done yet.

PTC is making good on their Social Product Development initiative. The new SocialLink product is a great example of this. They added a new product, but also demonstrated how these new social computing capabilities will work across the entire PTC product portfolio. That is the right way to do it (in my opinion). The capabilities are generalized and part of the infrastructure (in large part thanks to Microsoft), but the application of the capabilities is happening in the solutions themselves. This allows product managers from each product line to decide how their users can benefit. Expect more here over time.

PTC has refocused on a Small to Midsize Business (SMB) PDM system – ProductPoint is no longer trying to be both a simpler PDM offering for the SMB and PTC’s answer to Social Product Development. With the introduction of SocialLink and other social computing capabilities, ProductPoint is now free to be a SharePoint-based PDM system. Good news for the SMB who doesn’t need (or can’t attain) a full PLM system.

PTC enters PPM market – PTC is launching a product portfolio management solution based on Microsoft technology. The early indications are that PTC’s solution is more focused on project roll ups and programs than decision support in product portfolios and R&D investment. Stay tuned for more on this in the future as I learn more.

PlanetPTC replaces PTCuser – PTC users have asked PTC to take a broader role and responsibility in the user event. PlanetPTC also includes a community site and virtual events like webcasts, showing that PTC really believes in the power of social media.

So that’s what I hear from PTC, I am sure I missed something. I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them? What else would you like them to do?

I had the chance to talk with … the team at Synergis Software about their engineering document management solution, Adept. Synergis focuses on providing a simple solution to manage engineering documents – including CAD files – than a full PLM solution. For companies without big plans for PLM, particularly smaller companies, Synergis offers an alternative option. Perhaps they are on to something, 2009 was a tough year in our industry and Synergis reports having a very good year. 

What do they Do? 

First and foremost Adept is not a PLM system. Some would probably call it Product Data Management (PDM), but certainly not PLM. The solution is intended to help companies get control of their engineering information. The solution primarily manages documents. On the other hand, Synergis can help solve some PLM problems. One of the core needs for PLM is to get data under control. Engineers have documents of all types, including office productivity applications like spreadsheets. This is what Adept is designed to manage.

But most engineers also manage CAD files in Adept. In fact, Synergis has invested in integration with SolidWorks and Autodesk Inventor that rivals many PDM systems. They have developed an integrated plug-in that sits in SolidWorks that allows users to perform searches and do check-in/check-out from a right-hand pane in SolidWorks. They have integrated with Inventor as well, and have announced a new plug-in application for that environment.  

What do they Offer 

I had the chance to participate in a discussion by Bob Deragisch of Parker Hannifin at COFES last week. His topic, Living with Heterogeneous Systems, is a top of mind issue for many large manufacturers I speak with. So has Parker found the key to managing disparate engineering and enterprise systems? In a word, no. Sorry, there was no silver bullet answer uncovered by Parker or any of the other participants. But the steps Parker has taken and the ongoing challenge are worth discussing.

The Parker Scenario

Here are some of the key thinkgs that I took away from Bob’s discussion and description of the Parker Hannifin systems ecosystem:

• Parker Hannifin is now 135 divisions
• They have acquired 120 companies of all sizes
• Just in aersospace (Bob’s area), they have 8 divisions … and 6 ERP systems!
• They have even more engineering tools than ERP systems - 185 engineering tools

Does that sound scarey? It should. How can those systems possibly be integrated into a consistent, repeatable workflow? How can data be shared effectively across so many tools? How can engineering data be reused? How can employees be shared between divisions (or from program to program) to meet capacity needs? This is the challenge that Parker faced. This is not that different than a lot of big companies, particularly those that have grown through acquisition.

Parker’s Response

So given the challenges, what has Parker done? The first thing Bob made sure to say was that he wasn’t at COFES to present the answer, he was there looking for answers. He described what Parker has done to date. He explained that the first step was to try to homogenize. Parker developed corporate standards for their engineering tools. They have developed a systems design process that narrows tools down to 20 tools. For some, 20 might sound like a lot of engineering tools. For many, that number sounds like an unachievable dream. For Parker, it is a set of standards they are trying to move towards. They have one standard MCAD (mechanical CAD) tool and other singular standards for tools such as ECAD (electronics CAD), requirements management, and others.

So how has this worked? Trying to standardize on a single MCAD tool, for example, is “like herding cats.” There has been a lot of resistance by engineers that feel they are more productive in their tool of choice. Externally, Parker faces challenges in consolidating tools because they supply components and subsystems to other manufacturers. These customers ”expect designs to come in their format.” And Bob says they have given up on CAD interoperability.” Bob did add, however, that they expect interpoerability from PLM.

So is there help? PLM systems help manage the data and processes from all of these systems, and is a key part of the answer. New architectures make integration easier (see The Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM in Manufacturing). But this will be an issue for some time to come. If you have the answer, let us all know (and I will pass it on to Bob).

So that’s what I hear from Bob Deragisch at Parker, I hope you found it useful. I found his discussion relavent, open, and honest. Parker, as much progress as they have made, is still looking for answers. What do you think?

I had the chance to talk with … the PLM team at SAP recently to get an update on their plans and their progress to date. I have stayed in touch with them over the years, and have always been impressed by the opportunity they have to connect the business of manufacturing with the business of product development. As I reflected on the conversation, I struggled to understand why after all of the years of SAP getting too much credit for PLM, why they don’t seem to be getting as much credit for their recent efforts as I would expect. Today I hope to present both sides of the argument in the hopes to bring some clarity to the subject, and to start a conversation so we can all learn from each other.

Too Much Credit?

I have focused a lot of discussion on the complementary roles of ERP and PLM, and for many companies that translates to the roles of SAP and PLM. I have cautioned manufacturers in the past:

• Not to assume that an ERP provider that “checks the box” for PLM actually has a suitable PLM suite
• Don’t assume that any company offering both ERP and PLM have actually integrated them in a way that works for their particular business
• PLM suites vary significantly between vendors, even among the “best-of-breed” vendors
• PLM is not just another module of ERP, but a suite of solutions itself with some unique requirements

Those comments were typically in reaction to the “suite provider effect” where executives take a cursory look at a software requirement (such as PLM) and say “Doesn’t our ERP company have that? Let’s just use theirs.” While the ERP vendor’s solution deserves a review, if it doesn’t meet the business needs than the potential benefits of a single vendor and an integrated solution don’t add up to much. This conversation started way back in 2003 with my article Can ERP Speak PLM? in Technology Evaluation Centers (TEC) when I served as the analyst for the PLM Evaluation Center.

With all of those cautions in mind, my hope was that manufacturers that have an ERP (such as SAP) would do a thorough evaluation of their needs, and then select the solution (or solutions) that would work best for their business. In other words, they shouldn’t just take PLM from their ERP provider blindly.

Not Enough Credit?

With all of those cautions aside, the ERP provider should get a fair evaluation. There are benefits to integration and a single vendor solution. And SAP has clearly invested in PLM. I wrote about SAP’s PLM strategy and roadmap in the past on my Manufacturing Business Technology blog.* SAP has taken on a multi-year program to enhance their PLM offering, and they have made significant progress. Last year they introduced a new, web-focused interface that pulls together a product-centric dashboard for an item. The “PLM Object Navigator” as it was called offers information about a part from both ERP and PLM perspectives, including configurable sidebars. They have now extended that interface to the process PLM community, where SAP has a significant installed base.

But user interface isn’t all that SAP has focused on. They have integrated CAD management and visual communication capabilities to develop visual representations of the CAD models that all users can access. They have added functionality including labeling functionality for consumer packaged goods (CPG). They have also enhanced product compliance, collaboration, and requirements management.

SAP has remained consistent in their focus to support four PLM “value scenarios,” enabling business processes to help manufacturers in specific initiatives to establish “Product and Service Leadership“:

• Consumer-Driven, Sustainable Innovation
• Integrated Product Development
• Continuous Product and Service Integration
• Embedded Product Compliance

The names have changed slightly over time, but the needs SAP is trying to meet are well-planned, important, and have remained consistent. Clearly, SAP has a plan and has been hard at work to achieve it. 

The Confusion, and the Questions

When I talk to the SAP PLM team, I can feel the excitement and their sense of accomplishment. I hear about the progress on their plans and how they are fulfilling the needs of their customers. Yet from the manufacturers I speak with, I don’t feel the same enthusiasm. So here are my questions:

• Am I talking to the wrong companies, or the wrong people?
• Is it still too early?
• Did the down economy last year stall SAP’s ability to get the word out?
• Does SAP not have the ear of the product innovation, product development, and engineering staff?
• Are manufacturers tired of hearing what is coming?
• Is there just still more that needs to be done?
• Are the best-of-breed vendors too far ahead? Or too entrenched?
• Is there a slow revolution happening that I am just not in touch with?

So that’s what I hear from SAP, and my resulting confusion. I hope you found it interesting. What do you think? Can you help shed some light on my questions?

*Note: Sorry, no link to past posts on SAP PLM right now. Unfortunately the blog was taken offline by Reed Business when they closed the magazine. I hope to get that content back at some point to share with you.

What I learned this week … came from a conversation with Jeremy Johnson from IHS. Jeremy opened my eyes to a new way to make manufacturing more sustainable and ecologically friendly. I have written in the past about how companies are making their products compliant in Product Compliance – Hidden Tax on Innovation and  Making Product Compliance Sustainable. One way this is different is because it is not about the products, but the plant. But here’s the catch that makes this the most interesting to me. While product compliance helps to protect top-line revenue and market access across the globe, it is an activity that costs manufacturers money. As Jeremy explained, getting in control of the chemicals in the plant helps reduce environmental impact and increase employee health and safety - and also helps reduce cost at the same time. Now that sounds like something most executives would sign up for, regardless of whether their “green” philosophy focuses more attention on a greener planet or a greener wallet.

NOTE: Graphic from IHS White Paper, “IHS Chemical Inventory Greening”

Chemicals for MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul)
Manufacturers use a lot of chemicals. Most plants are filled with greases, solvents, and cleaners to name a few. These “indirect” materials frequently fall under lower levels of purchasing rigor, and companies tend to have a large number of similar products. This duplication offers a pretty straight-forward inventory reuse/consolidation opportunity. By gaining visibility and control over what chemicals a company uses (particularly if they are running multiple plants), companies can reduce procurement and handling costs. Simply consolidating from twenty hand cleaning products to a few could offer savings through bulk procurement contracts, reduction of duplicate inventory, and reducing other inventory handling costs including disposal.

Beyond cost savings, IHS acquired technology from a company called Dolphin Software. The Dolphin solution goes beyond part reduction to address employee health and safety and toxicity concerns. By using publicly available data, they pull together a “hazard profile” that indicates whether products contain known dangerous or environmentally unfriendly ingredients. When looking for opportunities to eliminate items, the decision can be made on cost, sustainability, and safety perspectives. By reviewing objective rankings of hazards in combination with spend, manufacturers can “green” up their operations while saving money.

Implications for Manufacturers

The opportunity for manufacturers is clear. Save money, and help save the planet. Most manufacturers I speak with would love to be more eco-friendly, but find themselves as cross purposes with making a profit. This initiative helps them operate in a more sustainable way without a big price tag. In fact, it comes with money back! Of course Jeremy points out that chemicals can’t be rationalized blindly, they have to meet the operational needs they are currently being purchased for. The approach is sound, and IHS has a number of case studies they shared with me that back up the approach.

So companies can go green without having to sacrifice profits, I hope you found it interesting. It’s a pretty compelling opportunity. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

I had the chance to talk with … Tim Frost of Burner Systems International (BSI) about their adoption of Product Data Management (PDM) to improve engineering and new product development performance. Tim explained to me that one of the primary goals for their adoption of PLM was getting a handle on their product data. But BSI also wanted to expand collaboration outside of Engineering and improve their time to market. The case study, Tech-Clarity Business in Focus: Burner Systems International – Improving Collaboration with Product Data Management, describes BSI’s experience from recognizing the need for action due to increased complexity in their business all the way through today’s benefits and plans for the future.

What do they Do?

BSI is a supplier to the OEMs that manufacture gas appliances. Like most suppliers, they compete very aggressively with their competition. They compete based on innovation, but most importantly on agility. They need to be able to react quickly to customer needs and bring the right component to market. Due to increased competition, growth by acquisition, and globalization BSI faced a huge challenge. As Tim tells me “We ended up with plants all over the globe, and we had to integrate engineering functions and data.”

What did they Do?

Recognizing the increased complexity, BSI took action. “You can use folders and you might get away with it for a while, but with multiple revisions you can’t manage it,” Tim explains. The solution was to implement a Product Data Management (PDM) system.  Just as importantly, they wanted to improve collaboration across departments. Tim describes how they implemented a PLM system (which includes PDM) that can be used by engineers and non-engineers alike. We discussed how departments like Quality, Manufacturing, Purchasing, and Sales get involved in the product design and development process.

What are the Results?

The new PDM system has shrunk cycle times and helped them make fewer manufacturing errors. According to Tim, those errors can cost up to $100,000 each. BSI is pleased with the results. “We know that we are faster in developing new products, I would estimate 25% faster,” Tim says. “We know that we are better prepared for launching production due to better input and collaboration from Manufacturing, and we know that we are less likely to make bad parts due to out of date drawing revisions.” The project is a success, and BSI is looking to further their gains by continuing to go beyond PDM to a more full PLM solution, leveraging the infrastructure they have in place.

 Implications for Manufacturers

 Burner Systems is a great example of a smaller company that desperately needed to get product data under control. At the same time, they have managed to achieve even more strategic benefits through collaboration and improved time to market. PDM is often the first step in a broader PLM Program.

So that’s what I hear from BSI, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them? A summary of the report is available from the Tech-Clarity site, and the full report is available for free from Siemens PLM, the provider of the Teamcenter Express software that BSI uses (and the sponsor of the report). Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

I had the chance to talk with … Sustainable Minds CEO Terry Swack late last year about their entry into the software world. The company introduced their on demand, green product design software to help manufacturers develop greener products. Sustainable Minds is furthering their ecodesign services by offering companies the ability to measure – and reduce – the environmental impact of their products early in the product lifecycle.

What do they Do?

The key to what Sustainable Minds offers is the ability to help companies make design trade-offs based on objective impact critera. Their product, Lifecycle Analyzer (LCA), allows companies to take a holistic look at the way their products affect our planet, including the energy used to produce it, logistics impact, energy to operate in use, packaging, and consummables. Their methodology, “Okala,” includes “impact factors” that allow designers to compare different options in systematic, repeatable, measurable way. I was impressed that the methodology is based on sound science and data from sources such as the EPA, giving the impact factors credibility. Okala is a single figure scoring system that includes 10 impact categories, over 550 impact factors, and CO2 equivalent values. Although there is no way to truly estimate how “green” a product is, the methodology and software provide a logical way to compare options in a meaningful way.

What do they Offer?

The LCA solution is made to work in conjunction with other solutions like CAD and PLM. For example, it can import a bill of material (BOM) from a CAD system to help engineers understand how “green” their products will perform. By wrapping LCA into the new product development (NPD) process, companies have the opportunity to make environmentally-friendly decision when they still have the flexibility to make decisions that won’t adversely impact product performance or cost, changing “green” from an afterthought to a design parameter that can be tracked.

Sustinable Minds also offers a Learning Center and a community to help companies adopt ecodesign strategies. They also leverage a database with impact factors and offer a process as well as tool. While most companies struggle today with just a process, this broad offering provides a way for companies to get started and makes analyzing design impacts realistically achievable.

Who do they Work With?

LCA is an early product, and Sustainable Minds has been running successful beta pilots. The goal is to work with manufacturers, consultants, and education to promote ecodesign. The company plans to roll out 12 industry modules, so they are thinking very big.

So that’s what I hear from Sustainable Minds, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

I had the chance to talk with … Aras recently to get an update on their open source PLM offering. I find there is a lot of confusion about open source software, and talking to Aras offered a very simple view of what open source means to them (and their customers). In a nutshell, they say, open source PLM means “no more PLM license fees, ever.” Pretty compelling. But what do you get for free? Cost is only one part of the equation, manufacturers need to focus on the value they will receive. And license costs are only one part of cost. So what’s the deal?

What do they Do?

To be clear, Aras is not a charity or a non-profit organization. They are a serious software company. They just chose a different business model. They are not a bunch of open source zealots trying to change the world. They are PLM savvy software people that intended – and still intend – to bring a full feature PLM product to market and run a profitable business at the same time. Is that open source? Yes, that is practical open source that makes sense for both the vendor and their community (customers).

Yes, Aras has customers. Those customers pay them. The software comes free, you just download it from the Aras site. But companies pay a subscription fee for maintenance and support should they choose them. And let’s face it, most do unless they are just in an exploratory or pilot mode. I am sure that there are some that envision open source as a purely collaborative group of individuals from different companies, diligently working away in their spare time. There is some truth the the value of the community in development, but in general the core development is done by Aras developers. There are community donated solutions to extend Aras, they claim 60 such “projects” available at this time.

One other key aspect of the “Enterprise Open Source” model Aras is promoting is that manufacturers pay a flat subscription fee. This means as companies expand their usage of the solution, their software costs do not rise. There is no user-based fee, which for example might allow a larger company to expand to other divisions for no additional charge. It also means adding users outside of Engineering does not add to the software cost. Again, a pretty compelling model.

What do they Offer?

But even free only makes sense if the solution provides value. PLM systems take time and resources to implement, and there will still be costs for hardware and other supporting infrastructure. If the value is low, even free doesn’t make it worthwhile. One thing that is important to remember about Aras is that they did not start from scratch. Aras was already developing a PLM solution (and one with some very nice architecture, by the way) before they adopted the open source model. So their solution is broad, and includes capabilities that even the biggest vendors don’t necessarily have. An example is APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) to support Quality Lifecycle Management in the PLM context. So don’t expect Aras to be a PLM “starter kit” for a custom solution. It is a standard solution, developed by a real software company. They have just chosen a different business model.

Does open source work? Open source solutions are not for everybody. But Aras is certainly worth looking at if you are considering a PLM implementation (or extension). And as far as Aras is concerned, they have managed to grow in a down economy. So it is clearly working for them. For more on Aras, see my previous post One-to-One: PLM? Microsoft? SOA? Open Source? Aras says yes.

So that’s what I hear from open source PLM vendor Aras, I hope you found it useful. I hope it gives a clearer picture on the realities of open source. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?