Clarity on PLM

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?

I had the chance to talk with … Siemens PLM a couple of times in response to my post on Quality Lifecycle Management titled Expanding PLM’s Pervue – Quality and Risk Management. While I mentioned that some of the major PLM vendors had developed solutions for quality management, I did not mention Siemens PLM. The reason for not mentioning them, I explained, is that I didn’t know about their solution! I since had a good conversation with the Siemens team about their offering. It is interesting, takes a bit of a unique approach, and I think it is worth talking about. So here it is!

What do they Offer?

What I find unique about the Siemens Dimensional Planning and Validation (DPV) solution is that it does not replicate what standalone Quality Risk Management (QRM) and Quality Lifecycle Management vendors offer. It is a relatively unique approach, which also makes it a complementary solution.  One of the main things things that manufacturers can do to improve quality is to “close the loop” on quality by feeding actual results back into the manufacturing and design processes to improve quality. That is what the Siemens solution does.

Providing feedback on quality to upstream functions  is one of those concepts that is obvious to most people, few will disagree with, but most companies don’t do. Why? It is hard to cross organizational boundaries and get people to work together. Frequently, Engineering and Manufacturing don’t have access to information (or at least information that they trust.) Sometimes, as I am sure some will point out, they just don’t listen. What I like about the Siemens solution is that the feedback is quantitative and based on actuals. In fact, what the solution does is take actual dimension product measurements (typically from automated testing equipment) from the shop floor and provide feedback upstream.

By tracking actual dimensional results by plant, production run, and other manufacturing parameters the solution offers the ability to analyze performance over time and look for improvement opportunities. One of the key elements that makes this beneficial is the analytical engine behind it, similar to other trends to use business intelligence (BI) in PLM. Another nice feature is that the results become a part of the PLM data model, and can even be shown against the 3D model. The goal is to provide feedback to Engineers so they can adjust designs, features, tolerances, and inspection points to improve quality by design. In short, they are closing the loop.

Siemens explained the value in simple terms, which I will use as the last words for this section. I think these words some sum up the difference in their solution, because it is based on actual results, uses analytics and allerts to provide the right information to Engineers, and puts the results into the product/PLM context to be shared broadly across the enterprise. In their words, the solution helps manufacturers:

“Find it quicker, fix it faster, share the knowledge“

Who do they Work with?

This solution is primarily intended for discrete manufacturers with dimensionally based parts. The early development customer that Siemens worked with is in the automotive industry, where quality is critical and production volumes are high enough to make this feedback useful. Other similar industries can benefit from this as well.

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 had the chance to talk with … Dassault Systemes and IBM today about Dassault’s announced acquisition of parts of IBM’s PLM business. For many, this is the dissolution of a long-standing marriage that they are comfortable with and makes sense. They may mourn the loss. To me, this is just the final correction to a legacy relationship that has served its time and purpose. Dassault Systemes (DS) and IBM have been great partners – and still will be. But this move will allow IBM and DS to focus on their core competencies and allow DS to continue pursuing their PLM vision.

Dassault Systems Acquires IBM PLM

A Market Correction, a Return to Core Competencies

The relationship has evolved over time. What made sense when the relationship started has changed based on the maturity of the PLM market. DS PLM software is being used by a lot of major companies, and they have their own choices for their systems integrators and consultants. So over time, DS has developed relationships with other leading systems integrators. In the same way, IBM customers may be using DS solutions, or they could be using software from Siemens, PTC, or others. So IBM has developed relationships with these PLM companies. This is just the natural way of things in a multi-vendor market, and it is probably the most beneficial relationship for DS and IBM customers.

To me, this is the natural course of things and it allows each company to focus on their strengths:

• IBM can now focus on systems integration, business consulting, and infrastructure like middleware/SOA/business intelligence/cloud computing in a multi-vendor world. IBM is not out of the PLM business. In fact, PLM is still very strategic to IBM. But directly selling and servicing PLM software from one vendor no longer makes sense. IBM will transition their sales and support teams, but retain their PLM Centers of Excellence, domain expertise, and consulting resources. IBM will still be in PLM in a big way and can focus on their significant PLM opportunities, but in a way that makes more sense for IBM.
• Dassault Systemes can now focus on selling software and servicing their customers. This move strengthens the DS team, and gives them more control of their sales and support business because it is now fully a part of DS, and working with their other PLM partners. DS can now focus on being a software vendor without worrying which customers are direct customers and which are IBM customers. DS benefited greatly from the IBM relationship over the years, but has been ready to move on for some time. And they made a bold market move to make it happen.

This move, although significant, is simply a matter of core competencies and focus. The legacy relationship just didn’t continue to make sense at this point, and it has evolved in this direction over the last several years.

Impact on the PLM Market

This is good for the PLM market, and I don’t think it will be a huge surprise that these two PLM leaders have returned to more focused roles. The way that it happened (as an acquisition) accelerated a needed change, so that might be a surprise. I think this is good for everybody. DS partners with lots of consulting firms and IBM partners with lots of software vendors. Now, none of them have to be concerned that IBM and DS are unnaturally tied together. This is a correction of a legacy issue in the PLM ecosystem, in my opinion. Now, all is right with the universe.

This had to happen, and the IBM-DS relationship has been evolving in this direction over the last several years. The real question that was outstanding in my mind was how DS and IBM could take the final step to return to more focused roles. The end result of an acquisition is probably the cleanest way for this to happen, and one that I think should work well for both businesses. I would not have predicted an acquisition, but now that it is done I think it was a great resolution. It is a win-win for both companies.

One last piece to consider is that Dassault works with IBM, but also works with Microsoft and others from an infrastructure point of view. Having IBM and DS play more focused roles in the PLM ecosystem also makes those relationships more straightforward.

Impact on Manufacturers
The net impact on the manufacturing industry? As much as this change means to the market (and to IBM and Dassault) I think that customers will see little difference. The same people that were supporting them before will continue to support them, although they will have a different logo on their business card. IBM is still strongly in the PLM business, so those IBMers that stay in IBM will still be available as well.

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

I had the chance to talk with … Dassault Systemes CEO Bernard Charles and his team at Dassault’s 2009 customer conference today. I attended the general sessions in the morning and then spent some time speaking with DS execs in a smaller group setting. Once again, Bernard and the team painted a very different picture of PLM than some might have in mind. Dassault does PLM, but the vision does not stop there. It doesn’t matter if you call it PLM 2.0 (as Dassault does) or put some other label on it – DS has a very unique view on what the future will look like. And they have plans to play a broader role than CAD, CAE or product design.

What do they Do?
Dassault is one of the largest PLM vendors in the market. For more on what they do, see past posts One-to-One: Reinventing Dassault Systems? and also One-to-One: Dassault Strives to Make 3D Accessible to All in the SMB with V6.

Where is Dassault Systemes Going?
DS is clearly a leader in the PLM space. How do they view themselves in the future? Some key tenants of the DS vision shared today include:

• 3D Lifelike Experience - “see what you mean” or “SWYM“
• Social Innovation
• Smart Products
• User-Generated Content and Involvement – “from Consumer to Consum’Actor“
• Sustainable Development
• Business Processes – core processes for 11 industries and ~50 industry sub-segments
• PLM Online for All – web-based and SOA

What Does it All Mean?
First, expect Dassault to push the 3D experience hard. Second, don’t expect them to limit the use of 3D and lifelike experiences to an engineering audience. In the manufacturing industries, expect to see them continue to offer 3D applications for new areas such as sales and marketing. DS sees themselves playing just as much of a role helping companies define the product experience (packaging design, shelf placement, consumer interaction) as they do defining the product itself. They have already brought solutions to market and have done some work (not commercial product yet) in areas such as eye tracking technology to analyze customer reaction and behavior. Keep your eyes on the 3DVIA brand and how it fits in with ENOVIA. Note that these solutions have potential in many other industries than manufacturing (or even gaming, another current DS market), with the opportunity to enhance the web to incorporate lifelike experiences. Bernard pointed out in the general session that the Web “does not have emotion or allow people to experience or interact.” What is needed, he explains, are 3D and smart objects that offer realistic simulation and comply with the real-world rules of physics. To me, this feels like a very different vision for PLM than I hear elsewhere.

Also, expect DS to push into more social aspects of innovation. This was one of the biggest topics we discussed in our smaller group. Bernard tells the story of how social networking techniques are helping within Dassault, and how they are learning through their use of Blue Kiwi (a software company they have invested heavily in) and of their own 3DVIA solutions. I don’t think they have it all figured out, which I respect. As I have seen in the past, DS is willing to experiment and learn (as their customers are learning) to leverage new social computing technologies.

I believe that social computing in PLM is a significant new evolution of PLM – see Social Computing Drives Innovation and related posts. Dassault sees this as well. As Bernard said “A year ago, I would have said social software is an add-on, now it is at the core of what we do.” A pretty powerful statement to say the least. There is more to say here, but the post is already getting long (sorry).

What about Product Design?
Don’t take this the wrong way. Dassault is still 100% in the PLM “1.0″ game and working hard to have the best design, analysis, and data management solutions they can bring to market. Dassault continues to invest heavily in their core solutions and the V6 platform. CAD and CAE are not as static, mature solutions as some would like to believe. Some examples of continued investment in the core solutions include:

• Systems Design and Simulation - in Bernard’s words, “Smart products is the future of CATIA” – see post about mechatronics and one of Dassault’s partners in One to One: Big Blues Unprecedented Mechatronic Opportunity for more.
• Continued Development to Support New Manufacturing Materials -composites, nanomaterials, …
• Integration and Interoperability – as an example, Simulation Lifecycle Management of SIMULIA data in ENOVIA

There is more here, but that is not the focus of my (rather lengthy, sorry) post.

Takeaways and Implications for Manufacturers
A demo of 3DVIA and the new iPhone application was a great example of the uniqueness of the DS vision. Instead of a car or plane Bernard showed 3DVIA on an iPhone. He took a picture of the furniture on the stage, and then added a table from the 3DVIA library. Not satisfied with the boring table, the model is sent via e-mail and a designer modifies it in 3D Shape. It is published back to 3DVIA, pulled up on the iPhone, and now we see a picture of the stage with a newly modeled table along with the existing furniture. The punchline is that “3D opens the door to the world we imagine.” Not a standard main-stage demo for a PLM company. Expect Dassault to push further with their vision of making the virtual world better reflect the real world.

So Dassault Systemes vision is different. To be I am not concluding that it is better, but I am concluding that it is unique. It is not for me to decide what companies will gain the most value from, only the customers and the market can decide that.

So that’s what I hear from Dassault Systemes. Bernard and the team are clearly not satisfied with a goal of leading today’s market, but shaping the future market as well. I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

I had the chance to talk with … Siemens (the manufacturer) and Siemens PLM (their PLM software group) last week as a participant in an PLM industry analysts meeting. The meeting was full of interesting updates on their PLM products, but one thing that really struck me was Siemens talking about Siemens. As many people know, Siemens was a big user of Siemens PLM solutions prior to acquiring them (back when they were known as UGS). When Siemens acquired UGS I saw some real promise and some real potential problems, it was interesting to get an update and a new perspective.

Recapping my Earlier Thoughts on the Acquisition

I shared my public thoughts on the Siemens-UGS acquisition in my blog, and shared some more thoughts directly with the UGS and Siemens teams. In short, I believed:

• It was a positive move to have a more stable “home” for UGS, although they were doing well on their own
• There was a tremendous opportunity for the newly joined company to integrate engineering and manufacturing execution
• There was a real risk (in my mind at least) that Siemens would start touting a fully integrated PLM-MES-Plant Equipment model before many of their customers were ready to think about it, let alone have the maturity to take advantage of it

Looking back at my blog from May, 2008 I see comments like “too much vision?” and “too big to fit in people’s heads.” It looks like I didn’t pull many punches in my public blog, I guess I should be thankful I am still asked to the meetings…

Siemens (the PLM Vendor) on Siemens (the Manufacturer)

Fast forward to the present time, and I am pleased to say that Siemens PLM is selling … drum roll please … PLM. The Siemens leadership has taken a very pragmatic approach to integrating the companies, and (from what I can see from the outside at least) let Siemens lead the way. Most of the UGS leadership is still in place, and Siemens seems to respect the former UGS organization’s knowledge of the software industry. From the product updates it is clear that they have not taken their eye off of other PLM opportunities or overemphasized the integration initiative, as the PLM solution is being enhanced in ways that the PLM market demands, not the parent company. Of course, that is what is in the best interest of Siemens as a whole, but sometimes acquiring companies lose perspective on things like that.

Having said that, the larger opportunity has not been lost. It just hasn’t been pushed into places where it is too much to handle. The teams talked about some real examples of joint opportunities where they have worked together, and are moving in a practical way towards integrated offerings. What was even more interesting to me as to listen to Helmuth Ludwig talk about Siemens as a corporation. He talks about the ability to team with his manufacturing counterparts to help move towards greater integration of innovation and manufacturing. He used the term “laboratory” to explain how they can learn internally from their more advanced manufacturing businesses. Siemens (and other PLM vendors) often team with their more advanced customers to experiment and co-develop solutions, but few have the advantage of having the PLM vendor, the manufacturer, the MES vendor, and the plant equipment/controls vendor all within the same company.

Siemens (the Manufacturer) on Siemens (the PLM Vendor)

The other perspective that was shared at the meeting was from a Siemens manufacturing plant. This was not one of the “laboratory” opportunities, but one that was still maturing in their use of PLM. My key takeaways from that presentation are:

• They were using Siemens PLM solutions before the acquisition
• They are continuing to use Siemens PLM solutions now
• They are running at their own PLM maturity level, and not overwhelmed with having to adopt the fully integrated model (which they aren’t organizationally ready for)

In short, they are free to move up the PLM maturity curve at their own pace, and Siemens PLM is there to support them. The goods news is that Siemens seems to be able to support the majority of the market that is early in PLM maturity, at the same time they are pushing the limits on the more advanced end of a fully integrated innovation-production model.

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

I had the chance to talk with … Jim Todhunter and the team at Invention Machine about the new product release they announced today. There are lot of things that I like in the release designed to help further Invention Machine’s ability to operationalize innovation. But what really struck me was the goal of this release to improve “Every Day Innovation” in a procedural, sustainable way.

What do they Do?

In short, and in my words, Invention Machine offers a software solution that helps manufacturers turn innovation into a repeatable process. This is what I like to call “operationalizing innovation” as opposed to leaving innovation to chance. Invention Machine does this through a combination of:

• Task-oriented innovation workflows
• Packaged innovation, engineering and problem-solving tools and methodologies
• Innovation and engineering knowledge management and search

Invention Machine is a very unique company, and one that many have a hard time grasping exactly what they do. But what always strikes me is that they have a very impressive list of customers. I have had the chance to talk with quite a few of these customers, and they are all positive about what Invention Machine has done for them. So even if they are hard to understand, they are definitely worth a look.

What’s New?

So what is new in the release? There is quite a bit. Their Goldfire 5.5 launch adds new capabilities across the product line, and also introduces a new product called “Goldfire Insight.” The goal of this solution is to boost deployment of Goldfire to the “every day” innovators. Innovation comes in many forms, and Invention Machine is trying to extend their capabilities into every day engineering and innovation problem solving instead of just generating the big ideas or solving big, hairy problems. Jim Todhunter talks about the “little i” ind of innovation in addition to the “big I” type. Maybe one way to think of it is that Goldfire Insight helps the every day innovator stand on the shoulders of the master innovators to turn innovation into reality.

There are also new capabilities in the existing solutions. One of these capabilities is a question answering technology that helps innovators find the knowledge they need to get their jobs done without reinventing the wheel. There is also a new Knowledge Navigator that helps return knowledge in logical categories or “lenses,” providing order and intelligence to unstructured information and query results by leveraging Invention Machine’s strong semantic search capabilities.

There is also a new Research Guide that I am pretty interested in seeing in action at customers. The Research Guide not only helps capture engineering knowledge, it helps capture the innovation and decision-making process. Think of dynamically creating a “mind map” during a research or innovation project that documents the path you took (and links to the knowledge you uncovered) so you can go back and revisit it at a later time. This creates a new source of knowledge, by documenting the innovation process and the innovation path to create new knowledge. Pretty compelling. I liked the way Jim Todhunter explained it (possibly paraphrased):

Information -> enables -> Communities -> to perform -> Innovation -> which generates -> Information

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