Clarity on PLM

A quick peek into some more research on … standardizing CAD solutions, starting with a strategy to determine if you should standardize in the first place. Tech-Clarity Issue in Focus: CAD Standardization Strategies discusses considerations for operating in a multi-CAD environment versus standardizing on a single solution. My recent post Consolidating CAD – Strategic Advantages at Reduced Cost may have put the cart before the horse because it discussed the benefits of homogenizing CAD solutions across the enterprise before posing a simple question: “Should you consolidate?” Or another, critically important question: “Can you consolidate?” The paper is intended to help companies develop a “CAD Standardization Strategy” based on a thorough understanding of the business drivers, constraints, and tradeoffs impacting their decision. The previous paper can then provide more detail on the benefits of standardizing (including a financial model).

The Research Findings

The first part of the paper focuses on business drivers impacting the CAD strategy. The paper offers a list of business drivers that impact CAD decisions. These factors include impacts on:

• Direct cost
• Internal Efficiency
• Supply Chain Efficiency
• Customer Requirements
• Corporate Flexibility

 A large portion of the report is composed of a table of business drivers that can serve as a starting point for a company to evaluate the drivers to their own business. The next part of the report is about making tradeoffs. Few companies will have come up with a clear answer for standardization or for maintaining a multi-CAD environment. In fact, some companies may choose multi-CAD, as you will see from this discussion thread on Oleg’s Beyond PLM post CAD Strategies: Diversified or Unified?. The tradeoffs include:

• Savings from consolidation versus the cost of change
• Internal efficiency versus supply chain efficiency
• Internal and supply chain efficiency versus customer requirements 

There is another table that details some of these tradeoffs, although there may be additional tradeoffs for any particularly company scenario. Please see the paper for more detail and to read the recommendations.

Implications for Manufacturers

I hope this report servers as a starting point to an informed decision on CAD deployment. Every business is different in some way, so the tables may not be comprehensive for your particular company or supply chain. The most important thing to keep in mind, of course, is  to develop the CAD strategy based on the business strategy.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on developing a CAD standardization strategy, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … the benefits and savings available from consolidating onto a common CAD package in your business. Tech-Clarity Insight: Consolidating CAD – Benefits of a Unified CAD Strategy explores the strategic and operational benefits of leveraging a single package. As the research concludes, “… not all businesses have the opportunity to unify their CAD solutions … but there are multiple advantages for those that can.”

The Research Findings

The paper addresses benefits including enabling strategic initiatives and simple cost reduction. Strategically, a single tool can help support business strategies like a “design anywhere – build anywhere” approach. The report also explain how utilizing a single tool can help promote design reuse and simplify collaboration. Of course the biggest benefit may come from the ability to enable a more strategic, integrated PLM environment. These solutions typically involve a suite of pre-integrated solutions that are tailor-made for each other. 

The report also details the very tangible reductions in total cost of ownership for the CAD solution. By evaluating a multitude of cost drivers, the report suggests a framework and a sample set of calculations to quantify the cost savings available from consolidation. Some of the cost drivers are obvious, while others may be more subtle. For example:

• Removal of redundant CAD licenses (ok, no surprise yet)
• Reduce cost of upgrading software tools (maybe less obvious?)
• Eliminate need to develop training for redundant solution (maybe you wouldn’t have thought of this?)

See the report for a more complete listing and an educated (and conservative) example of the cost savings available. While the strategic benefits are compelling, many companies today may consider this strategy simply to achieve leaner IT overhead for their engineering software.

Implications for Manufacturers

What does this mean for manufacturers? I discussed that question with Paul Hoch, Team Leader of Product Engineering Services for lighting solutions manufacturer Zumtobel AG. He echoed a number of the benefits in the report, including cost savings and explaining that they “don’t get the full benefit from <their> 3D CAD models” without PLM. But the most strategic benefit Paul discussed was corporate flexibility, which is critical as companies try to survive in difficult, global markets.

“Our common tool is the basic infrastructure that allows us to make quick decisions on product and plant locations, it provides management with the flexibility and agility they need.“

I am not sure I can add anything more to the power of that statement, other than to suggest again that many companies may pursue consolidation for much more tactical reasons.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on consolidating CAD, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … on social computing for product development. Why does Facebook miss the mark? Can it be fixed? I have been talking for some time about the potential value of social computing in PLM and have mentioned before why Facebook will fail. I am preparing for a presentation next week, and decided to pull my thoughts together. So here they are, I look forward to your feedback.

The Research Findings

There are two parts to the findings. The first is a list of concerns that I have heard, here is a short list:

• What relevance do status comments and photos have to do with serious engineering?
• How will we protect intellectual property?
• What does Facebook know about business processes or how to manage them?
• What does Facebook know about engineering data? CAD files? Projects? Engineering in general?
• Why would I trust my business performance to a technology platform like Facebook that doesn’t appear stable or perform well (sorry Facebook, that is just my practical experience not a sound technical analysis)?
• How do I have time to pay attention to this in addition to everything I already do?
• How do we address security concerns?

OK, part two. Can it be fixed? Yes, but I doubt they will do it. There are two reasons:

• They are not focused on this and don’t have domain expertise
• They don’t have the ability to connect to the underlying context, the product data

But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let’s see what Facebook can teach us about PLM. Here are my thoughts (and if you happen to be in Helsinki next week stop by to see this live):

Implications for Manufacturers

Don’t look to tools like Facebook to help you with social computing in PLM. But don’t discount the concepts. Learn from them. They are compelling. And manufacturers are getting started. In fact, I look forward to sharing research that I am doing with Kalypso that gives some great insight on what companies have been doing.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on Facebook failing in PLM, I hope you found it interesting. Yes, I know they didn’t design to tool for product development, so I am really not picking on them. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … efficiently mitigating manufacturing risk from Tech-Clarity’s new report Quality Risk Management in Life Sciences: Preventing Failures, Protecting Patient Health. The study reviews two manufacturers’ experiences using Quality Risk Management (QRM) to proactively reduce risk. The report highlights the importance of managing quality in the product lifecycle, and explains how QRM software can be used to efficiently manage risk.

The Research Findings

The manufacturers interviewed, Moll Industries and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, expressed the importance of proactively identifying and mitigating risks in manufacturing. Both companies emphasized the importance of reducing risk from a patient health and safety perspective, but also from a business perspective.

Key findings from the report include:

• Share Quality Knowledge - Many companies have the information they need to predict and prevent errors from occurring. They typically capture this information poorly, though, or manage the information in documents that are inconsistent and spread across the organization. This makes the information difficult to find and almost impossible to reuse. So manufacturers are doomed to repeat the same mistakes without learning from them. Not only is this ineffective, it is also inefficient because FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and CAPA (Corrective Action and Preventative Action) processes and documents are recreated from scratch and not based on corporate knowledge.
• Closing the Loop on Quality - Just as I wrote recently about Closing the Loop on Product Innovation, there is a lot of important knowledge in Manufacturing and other departments that can be leveraged upstream. For quality information, this information can be shared with Engineering / R&D to design errors out of the process and also to Quality to develop control plans to build quality into the manufacturing process.

These two findings both point to a key theme – quality lifecycle management (QLM). Quality is one of the more pressing product lifecycle issues, and one that should be addressed in any PLM Strategy. QRM software helps to automate quality management processes such as FMEA and CAPA, and also provide the knowledge management (KM) capabilities required to share information and close the loop on quality. The report provides much more insight from each of the manufacturers, both of which are highly knowledgeable and experienced in QRM.

Implications for Manufacturers

Quality management can’t be a “check off the boxes” process. Manufacturers need to focus beyond compliance and take a business risk mitigation approach to quality. As I said in Expanding PLM’s Purview – Quality and Risk Management, “Quality is an important aspect of any product, and key to the profitability of a product across its lifecycle.” For medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences businesses – the stakes are even higher. Lives are at stake, and corporate executives can be prosecuted criminally and put in jail. What more motivation does a manufacturer need (short of a nice letter from the FDA)?

I will leave the final word to Wallace Torres of Roche:

“Many companies are not in the hot spot right now and will do the minimum, and they will never profit from the process. They will wait until the moment of a major regulatory observation, and this might be too late.”

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on managing risk, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about quality management, PLM, and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … how manufacturers and vendors plan to react to the market for CAD, CAE, PLM, and other engineering software in 2010. Last week I posted the first part of my research for COFES, Engineering Market Research Results from COFES 2010. Last week I reviewed how 2009 predictions played out and what the survey participants expect from 2010. Today, I plan to focus on what they are going to do about it.

The Research Findings – What Comes Next?

Let’s jump right in. 2009 was a bad experience for most companies in our market, but the outlook for 2010 looks a lot better. Stunning analysis on my part, isn’t it? More details are in the prior post, but I realize I stating the obvious based on what most of you are experiencing. So what did the survey say will happen in the engineering software market between now and this time next year (2011)? It is not all positive.

• Continued Consolidation – Over half of the respondents predict “continued consolidation within the industry.” This is not all bad, by the way. The market for suites of applications always relies on innovation around the edge and consolidation into an integrated offering. This has been true for other markets as well, for example the way ERP became such a large suite of solutions. I expect we will also see the kind of consolidation expected in most mature markets, where companies acquire older solutions to scale up their customer base and maintenance revenue. 
• Fewer New Entrants – Almost half (44%) of the participants believe there will fewer new companies coming into our market. I have heard that it is still difficult to get venture funding, so this doesn’t surprise me. I hope this changes, because I think market innovation is much easier in a “garage” than in a big corporate R&D center.
• Entry by “Others” – A third that responded to the survey see further entry into this market by “non-traditional” vendors like SAP, Oracle, and possibly others through acquisition. Interestingly, less than half that many (15%) believe those same companies will enter by developing their own solutions. See Who Will Disrupt PLM Giants? for more of my thoughts on that.

The Research Findings – What Are We Doing About It?

So that explains what we think will happen, but what are market participants planning do it about it? In a word, grow. In two words, grow profitably.

• Over 1/2 of companies polled listed “grow in existing markets” and “grow in new markets“ in their three responses. What clearer message could we get? Companies are upbeat about 2010.
• But wait, 40% say they also have “remain lean” in their strategies for 2010. I believe there are two drivers behind this. The first is caution. Yes, we are recovering. But no, I haven’t talked to a lot of people that are 100% confident that it will continue or that we won’t have a “double dip.” But there is another reason, in my opinion. That is profitability. Companies that remain lean in growth markets make nice profits. It is not sustainable over the long haul because people get overworked, but as a business strategy it works.

Implications for Manufacturers
So what does this all mean if you are a manufacturer? First, you are facing many of the same conditions. Your businesses are also planning to grow, but you will likely stay lean. One of the way to stay lean is to get the most out of the resources you have, which I believe will help fuel the engineering software market recovery. To remain lean, many manufacturers will upgrade tools and automate processes to improve efficiency. 2010 will be a busy year. But would anybody trade a busy 2010 for a repeat of 2009? I doubt it. Let’s get things rolling again, and then as growth is sustained let’s start to invest and get people back to work.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on how companies plan to react to the recovering market in 2010, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … the market for CAD, CAE, PLM, and other engineering software for 2010. 2009 was a very difficult year, no surprise. But what does 2010 look like? When will the market recover to pre-recession levels? Those are the questions we asked in a research study conducted between Tech-Clarity (me), Cyon Research, and Design Insight. Here is a synopsis of the research I presented at COFES in April.

Note: Please understand that I am not a financial analyst, and that this research is based on survey data that indicates the sentiment and beliefs of those buying, selling, and otherwise participating in the engineering software market. In other words, there is no financial investment advice here.

The Research Findings – History

The results from the 2009 engineering software market study were difficult to look at. Unfortunately, they were a pretty good reflection of the situation. Most people felt that it would be at least 2-3 years before the market recovered. More telling, however, was that the execs at the companies that buy the software said the recovery were more pessimistic than the execs at the companies the sell the software. That was a disturbing finding. We also discussed the implications for smaller vendors (specialty vendors and startups) and the projection was not pretty. So what really happened? And how do companies in the engineering software market feel today?

The Research Findings – View in 2010

The market is clearly recovering. While last year I had to start with a quote from Dilbert to lighten everybody up, this year I quotes Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying the economy started growing again in the 3rd quarter of 2009, and the economy was finally starting to create jobs. There was no surprise or sigh of relief in the room, everybody already knew this. Since that time, Dassault Systemes, PTC, and Siemens PLM have reported good news (quarterly results and/or big deals) compared to last year (among others).  My FABWA (financial analysis by walking around) at the conference told me that smaller companies are feeling the recovery as well. People are buying engineering software again (please insert a choir of angels here).

What did the over 400 survey participants have to say? Here are the highlights:

• The predictions from last year for 2010 were relatively accurate, 59% of of respondents said their business suffered “severe” or “moderate” negative impact in 2009 (compared to a prediction of 55%) – Mythbuster approved!
• The projections for 2010 are better, but don’t indicate we are out of the woods yet. 23% still expect moderate negative impact in 2010. But only 8% predict severe negative impact, and 20% expect a positive impact. We’ll take that over 2009 for sure!
• The channels including VARs (value added resellers) and consultants were hurt the most. Over 1/2 experienced severe negative impact. This was worse than predicted, even though the expectations were not very positive.
• Suite vendors including those with multiple engineering software solutions, enterprise software vendors (like SAP and Oracle), and infrastructure providers (like Microsoft) faired the best. Only 20% experienced severe negative impact.
• The channels are the least optimistic for a positive impact in 2010 (only 9%), while the suite vendors are the most optimistic (36%)
• Our predictions for smaller vendors were mixed, with larger vendors expecting more failures in their smaller competitors. While it was a tough year, the majority of the companies respondents had direct experience with fell into the “struggle but survive” category. The smaller vendors predicted this, and good for them. Of course there have been consolidations and failures, and as one participant commented “100% of the startups I was following failed to start“

So the obvious question is what comes next? Well, for  me it as another cup of coffee and a decision that this post is getting too long. So look for a part 2 with the future view shortly.

Implications for Manufacturers

So what does this all mean to the people using engineering software to make a living? The good news is that your business is likely recovering as well. The bad news, is that you are probably running very lean. But from this research (and related research by Cyon Research presented by Brad Holtz) you are also likely to be buying engineering software to help. I am sure that is good news to many that have had strategic programs put on hold due to economic uncertainty. Things are starting to move forward again.

And hopefully your critical vendors either survived the downturn or were acquired by a company that will support you well. The vendor shakeout is probably not entirely over, but if your vendor made it through 2009 they have proven they have some resilience and should have a much easier time going forward.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the engineering software market, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … closing the loop on product innovation through an integrated ERP-PLM strategy. This paper furthers past research on The Complementary Roles of ERP and PLM and earlier research on how integration between these two enterprise systems is maturing in the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM. The topic of how manufacturers can best leverage ERP and PLM systems is one that I continue to get questions on, and I hope that this paper, Issue in Focus: The Integrated ERP-PLM Strategy, helps further the conversation. I should also point to a good discussion on Oleg’s PLM Twine generated by my last research on ERP and PLM, there are some good comments made there.

The Research Findings

At the risk of being redundant, the paper reconfirms the primary roles of ERP and PLM:

• PLM – PLM focuses on product innovation, and is designed to help manufacturers design, develop, and launch profitable products.
• ERP - ERP’s role is executing the business of manufacturing, supporting the business of planning and managing the execution cycle.

To many these may seem to be an obvious statements, but I still hear confusion in the manufacturing community. This is particularly true as ERP companies introduce PLM solutions. That is why I clearly “Busted“ the myth that PLM is a module of ERP in my Mythbusting ERP-PLM Integration post.

So what is new in this report? A focus on closed loop integration. Here are the key points that I hope people will take away from the research:

• Innovation is not limited to Engineering – Manufacturing, Service, and other departments innovate too. They change processes and make minor product changes for service or manufacturability to keep things working smoothly. These smaller, day-to-day innovations are frequently not communicated back to Engineering, and are therefore implemented inconsistently and not designed into the next generation of products. I recognize that this is not as prevalent in all industries (due to regulation), but the result is a disconnect between what was designed and what is built and in the field.
• Companies are not Confident Enough to Introduce Changes Rapidly – Many companies do not have a change management process that allows them to rapidly improve their product. Engineering changes are held up into batches or delayed because manufacturers lack the ability to clearly communicate changes to Manufacturing and the supply chain without disruption. The result here is delayed time to market for cost reduction, quality improvements, and minor product enhancements. Or, companies push forward anyway and end up with scrap, rework, and unhappy customers.

A well integrated manufacturing systems environment can help companies overcome these two issues. Closing the loop (through integration) allows companies to rapidly introduce continuous improvements, and keep designs in sync across departments and the product lifecycle.  

Implications for Manufacturers
For manufacturers, integrating ERP and PLM is becoming more commonplace. This is good news. Of course, not everybody has PLM in place yet, although most have an ERP (or more than one in many cases, but that is a different story). Unfortunately, I continue to see companies make ERP and PLM choices tactically instead of strategically. I discussed one example of this in Choosing an ERP to fit PLM. This leads to two other points that I hope manufacturers will take away from this research:

• ERP and PLM strategies are too important to be technology-led decisions, and should be addressed in a process-centric approach.
• Recognizing that both ERP and PLM are critical to product profitability, manufacturers must be uncompromising on the needs of these two systems.

As I say in the final recommendations, “Choose the right ERP and PLM solutions, making sure they meet your company, industry, and manufacturing model requirements.” Get the right ERP and PLM systems first. Focus first on getting software that meets the innovation and execution needs of your business. It is better if those solutions are “integration-capable” through current technologies (SOA, XML, API, etc.). Ideally, the solutions come pre-integrated by the vendors. But integration has to be a secondary set of requirements behind functional capability.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on integrating ERP and PLM to close the loop on product innovation, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research (and some “mythbusting”) on a post by Christopher Null on Yahoo News titled “Facebook and business don’t necessarily mix.” Great, catchy headline. But does it really reflect the underlying research from MIT? I don’t think so. I will also share some comments posted on the PDMA blog from a study by Kalypso that don’t sync up with the commentary. And, I will provide an opportunity for you to speak your mind by participating in a current research study on social media and product innovation.

Commentary and Reactions

I don’t know the author of the post, but when I read it something didn’t sit right with me. For the most part, maybe it was that the title of the post didn’t match the underlying premise. To be fair, I know that some editorial gets “help” with their titles to grab attention (which this one certainly did, at least to me). But here are my thoughts (and feel free to “bust” them yourself, I realize I don’t own all the right answers).

Facebook and Business Don’t Necessarily Mix (Busted) – OK, I know I am picking on the title. But let’s own up to two realities:

1. You don’t have a choice. People on social networks are going to talk about your products. Whether you initiate the conversations or someone else does (customers or competitors), it is going to happen. As the post in PDMA ”Do you use social media in innovation?” points out, Social media on your terms is a much better idea than letting others take control of it for you. You MUST get ahead of this.

2. This isn’t what the MIT research says. The post Mr. Null references, “Pitch may fail on Facebook – Study: Social media don’t always create good buzz“, is much more aptly titled. What is says is that buzz can be positive or negative, and that it can actually hurt sales. According to the Boston Herald blog, the research (which I haven’t read, and is not published yet as far as I know) quotes the author as saying that “found that online buzz only helps when new products are at least half as good as consumers expected.” Now that is interesting! The author, P.J. Lamberson, an MIT Sloan School of Management visiting assistant professor, is said to use math to study large networks.

“Conventional Wisdom” (Plausible) – Mr. Null starts his article with “conventional wisdom now holds that if you want to have a successful product launch, you need to exploit Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace to get the word out about your product.” Is this really conventional wisdom? Are most companies using social media today? My experience says no, but I could be wrong. I will admit, my focus is more on social computing for product innovation, product development, and engineering (PLM) and not product launch. But my experience says that companies are experimenting with the use of social media, but it is far from standard operating procedure. The only evidence I have is from some preliminary results from the study being run by Kalypso (Disclosure: I am helping them run the study) that indicates that the use of social networking and social computing in product launches is still not fully developed. In fact, only about 1/2 of companies are using social media for product launch. Further, companies that are using social media are only using it on a small percentage of their initiatives. In other words, we are very early in the use of social media, and it is far from conventional wisdom. On the other hand, the preliminary results show that about 90% of companies that are using social media for innovation are planning to increase usage next year, with none indicating they were reducing it.  Why is this Plausible and not Busted? The research is not done – please participate in the survey and I will share results back with you via the blog.

Bottom Line (Busted) – After being generous with the last mark, I was fully planning to Confirm the post’s bottom line. Then I read it again to copy it here, and I disagree. “The bottom line is simple: Viral marketing, in which a conversation about a product is actively encouraged, can turn good or bad in ways that traditional marketing and advertising typically cannot. Unless a business pays careful attention to the tone of that conversation, the company could find itself shelling out millions on a viral ad campaign, only to have the unwanted effect of decreasing sales instead of increasing them.” I copied the whole comment over, because I agree with the first part. Yes, viral marketing can turn bad. But then it says business need to pay attention to the tone of the conversation. The underlying study (from what I can see) doesn’t say that. It says that your products have to meet expectations. In other words, it’s saying you can’t just manage the tone because it is out of your control.

Implications for Manufacturers
So what should manufacturers do? Learn from the study. What I hear is don’t over-hype your products, and don’t try to push a bad product through social media. It seems to me the harder you push how great a product is, the more likely you are to get dissenting view from customers. The study doesn’t say your product has to be good, it just has to meet expectations at least half-way.

Continue to experiment and learn. Social media is changing the way we interact with products. Be a part of the change and experiment. The last bit or preliminary data I will share from the Kalypso study is that those that are doing it are seeing business benefits (revenue, time to market, reduced cost). This is real, get on it.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on social networking and business, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Please feel free to review free research and white papers about product innovation and product development from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … the technology behind PLM applications, and what today’s CIO needs to know to support it. The research from Tech-Clarity, Enabling Product Lifecycle Management: The CIO’s Guide to Supporting a PLM Initiative,  points out unique implementation and support challenges the CIO and their team must be aware of in order to get the most business value out of PLM.

The Research Findings

The CIO’s organization is getting more involved in PLM implementations. While many Engineering IT teams have managed CAD and other engineering software and supporting infrastructure, PLM is getting more attention from the enterprise IT team because it has become – (wait for it) – an enterprise application. I know, it only makes sense. Implementing enterprise class applications has different considerations than installing design tools, and enterprise IT typically has more experience with systems that span the organization and the supply chain.

Having said that, PLM is not ERP. Nor is it CRM, SCM, or any host of other business-oriented enterprise applications. PLM, by the nature of the processes and data it addresses, comes with some unique information technology challenges. Here are some of the considerations discussed in the report:

• Protecting IP – PLM data is concurrently highly confidential, and much more valuable when shared broadly. Intellectual property is more likely to be shared as collaboration expands, and a lot of that collaboration is outside of the control of the corporate firewall.
• Huge Files – Engineering and product development data is different than large volumes of transactional data. There are some potentially significant issues arising from managing and collaborating on large files in order to support PLM.
• Scalability – PLM is expanding to more people, a broader view of the product, to more of the product lifecycle, and supports more processes. Implementations needs to plan for expansion along multiple dimensions, which could potentially create an exponential demand on IT infrastructure.
• Architecture - PLM vendors are moving to enterprise architecture, providing support for the challenges above but also introducing new challenges. The good news, though, is that these challenges are ones that the many corporate IT groups have already addressed.

PLM also brings about integration challenges. Companies have to be ready to support frequent, bi-directional, real-time integration between PLM. If not in the first phase, potentially sooner than they think. See more on ERP-PLM integration in the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM report and Mythbusting ERP-PLM Integration post. PLM integration with ERP and the rest of the manufacturing systems ecosystem is becoming more important and more prevalent.

Implications for Manufacturers

The good news? The PLM industry has learned from large scale PLM deployments, and has developed technology and best practices to address these issues. IT professionals today are not blazing the trail when they implement PLM. PLM is becoming much more mainstream. But it is also evolving to more of an enterprise application than just product data management (PDM), and moving into the enterprise realm. There is help available, from peer manufacturers that have undergone the transiiton and experienced consultants alike.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on getting PLM technology right, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … the impact of the economic downturn and the fledgeling recovery on the market for CAD, CAE, PLM, and other software for engineers and product developers. In 2009, I conducted a survey jointly  with Cyon Research, and Design Insight. We presented the results at the annual “Congress for the Future of Engineering Software, COFES, which generated some lively discussion. We are repeating the survey this year, and looking forward to understanding the views of the market this year as compared to last.

The Research Findings – 2010 (please take the survey)

Before getting into the results for 2009, I ask you please contribute by taking 5-10 minutes of your time to answer about a dozen short questions on this year’s survey:   COFES 2010 Survey.  Please participate, and I will make sure we share our findings and insights back with you.

The Research Findings – 2009

As I stated last year, the research was not intended to be an economic forecast, but instead an indication of the sentiment of the industry. The study was designed to guage respondents’ opinions about the market, and should be take as such.

I shared some results last year in Research Rap: Impact of Economy on Smaller PLM Vendors. I found it interesting that most smaller vendors felt that they would struggle but survive. As the calendar has turned, we will close the loop on this prediction and see how it turned out. I would dare say that the shakeout was not as bad as some expected it to be. But the big question was when did the people in the industry expect to see a return of the engineering software market to its prior strength. 

The question was: “What is your best estimate of when the engineering software market will recover (to approximately 2005-2007 levels)?” Here was the view from last year:

What we noticed, though, was that the executives at the software vendors were more optimistic about the timing of the recovery than the executives at their customers:

Who was right? Has their opinion changed? Please take the survey so we have a good comparison of this year’s market sentiment to last: COFES 2010 Survey. I promise to “mythbust” my own predictions as well as the markets.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the engineering software market recovery, I hope you found it interesting. Does the research reflect your experiences? Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective. Take the survey, and share your thoughts with all of us and the participants at COFES.

Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.