Clarity on PLM

What I learned this week … was that we could use a good, common PLM definition and scope, but we will not get one. The discussion (a lot of discussion in multiple forums, actually) came from my post SAP, Too Much or Too Little Credit for PLM Efforts and another called Who Will Disrupt Entrenched PLM Vendors? Chris Williams pointed out on a LinkedIn thread that he felt maybe the confusion was due to a lack of understanding of what PLM really is, and asked for a common definition. My response? Not so much.

A Not-so-Common Defintion

Chris asked the million dollar question. But PLM is not one thing. While ERP has matured to a more common footprint across the vendors, the scope of PLM from each of the vendors differs. I define PLM as “processes and software used to improve product innovation, product development, and engineering performance.” That is (by definition, not by fault) very broad. There is no one “PLM” definition. The vision of the vendors shows consoliation over time, but today they are very different. Siemens includes MRO (maintenance, repair and overhaul) for A&D. Dassault Systemes has spent much more effort in “lifelike simulation.” PTC includes development of product documentation. Then, there are the applications that don’t come as a part of the suite, which makes each implementation different. Aras includes APQP and quality. They are all different.

Implications for Manufacturers

The lack of a common definition is also why putting in PLM without a strategy is a quagmire waiting to happen. But a common defintion won’t help. While there are standard processes in PLM, they are not as common as in ERP. There are examples of common processes, such as Stage-Gate processes for new product development (NPD) or CMII for change management. But product innovation and product development are not as standardized processes as accounting, as an example. It is not the lack of common PLM system definition at the root of this, it is the lack of common PLM processes. And as much as companies like Invention Machine are putting process orientation into innovation, it will still not be as standardized as ERP functions like human resource management.

So, manufacturers really need to think about what problems they want to solve before implementing PLM. You can’t just install the software and expect any benefits (beyond maybe simple data management). This is what I call the PLM Program, a strategy and vision for PLM that you accomplish in small, incremental steps.

So those are my thoughts on a common PLM defintion, don’t hold your breath waiting for it. I hope you found it interesting. Do you have a better one? I didn’t, if you do let us know about it.

That, by the way, is one of the reasons it is very hard for ERP to simply build another module and call it PLM. That is why SAP has a long program to develop PLM (which will be yet another variation on the PLM theme, different from the others).

What I learned this week … came from some discussions with Chris Williams yesterday about my blog post SAP – Too Much, or Too Little Credit for PLM? in combination with a conversation over breakfast with Oleg, author of PLMTwine. In both conversations I kept hearing about who is going to disrupt the big PLM vendors (Dassault Systemes, PTC, Siemens PLM). Maybe I am just a small thinker, but there seems to be a lot more talk about disruption than actual disrupting going on. Time to share my thoughts, with the expectation that I might be eating my own words on this very blog over the next couple of years.

Disrupting Giants

Maybe it is my jaded view, but I don’t see technology being the disruptor to PLM. I have drawn as many “waves of technology” charts as the next guy, and discussed how difficult it is for vendors to move from one technology to the next big wave. But two things have happened:

• Enterprise software companies have managed to gain significant scale
• Vendors have gotten smarter at riding waves of technology

Already I am sure there are people disagreeing. Let me share my experience.

The Technology Wave Argument

Let’s start with the technology waves. Who will out-technology the big vendors. Will it be a SaaS play like Arena Solutions? Will it be open source like Aras? Or a brand new technology, like Chris William’s Vuuch? Or a more generalized infrastructure technology like Microsoft SharePoint? Or the king of disruption (they are disrupting everybody, I think I heard the words “disruption” and “Google“ at breakfast with Oleg more times than I orderd another cup of coffee (that is saying a lot).

OK, let me share some history that I lived through (maybe you have too). In the ERP world, many players have come and gone. Some have crashed and burned due to their own mismanagement, some have become obsolete in technology and withered away, and others tried and failed trying to migrate to new technology. So why doesn’t this happen to the current largest enterprise software vendor, SAP? Long ago, SAP burst onto the scense with Client-Server architecture with R/3. But truth be told, that transition was a slow and deliberate one. Since that time they have moved their technology along several times. Each time slowly, methodically, and never scrapping the old solution and going for broke on the new one. Countless others tried to grab the brass ring and jump to a new architecture, and drove their companies into the ground.

So while some get frustrated by slow evolution of architecture by big PLM vendors, I say they are being prudent. They are moving deliberately. Some say that will be their downfall. I say slow evolution is the best practice they learned from SAP’s success in ERP. I have heard the “we are going to make SAP (or Oracle, or whatever) obsolete pitch hundreds of times. Some from really great ideas and technologies. But where are they now? Part of the answer lies in the next section.

The Benefit of Scale

The key question in disrupting giants is what can you do that they can’t respond to? What can you where they can’t buy or build their way to the next generation? Particularly when most vendors are several steps ahead of the majority of their customers? Current vendors need to show a vision and a path, but revolution is pretty scary to most of the manufacturs they count as customers. As Oleg points out, and here I agree, one thing they can’t compete with is “free.” But I do not forsee the day that there will be an effort of the scale it takes to develop a full, integrated, PLM system. That is not just technology – it is data model and process as well. Let’s face it, this stuff is complex. But here is the thing. If one of these technologies gets hot, won’t the vendors with scale just acquire it? We are not talking about a solution with the broad interest and potential of word processing (Google Docs) or a brand new idea like social networking (Facebook, etc.). Who except a major enterprise player would invest in disrupting the PLM market? Who would find that investment appealing?

So is it SAP PLM? Or Oracle with their Agile solutions? They have the scale, do they have the will? Is PLM an interesting enough market that they will invest enough to compete with best-of-breed? Realizing, of course, that they have the advantage of their installed base in hand? Perhaps? But I don’t see this happening overnight. I believe the big ERP vendors will get to a level where they can compete, but the big PLM vendors have enough scale to stay ahead. SAP and Oracle will be players in the market, but I don’t think they will own it.

Bottom Line

Will their be acquisitions? Mergers? Sure. The names may change (I didn’t expect UGS to become Siemens PLM), but the assets (software and customer base) are large enough to live in. In my opinion. Unless they fall to their own mistakes, I don’t see a sudden displacement coming. I hope that I am not eating these words at some point, but if I should I will. But that is the way I see it.

Implications for Manufacturers

Buy the solution that works for you. Invest in it. Markets move slowly and software takes a long time to go away. Focus on the solution that meets your business needs, and that you feel you can grow with. Buy a solution that will fit the direction of your PLM vision. Keep an eye on new technologies and see where you can apply them. But I wouldn’t lose too much sleep about disruption right about now.

So have I just grown closed minded? Have I always been a small thinker and I just didn’t know it? Or am I making some sense? I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what it looks like from your vantage point.

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.

What I learned this week … came from a Crowdsourced Manufacturing? blog entry by Wayne Hodgkins. I haven’t read his Off Course-On Target blog before, but I liked what he had to say.  He made me really start to look at 3D Printing as a viable manufacturing options as opposed to a prototyping / design validation tool. This post is interesting, but I also took a quick look at his posts on printing in stainless steel and a very cool contraption that includes an onion, a laser scanner, and a 3D printer. Click through his site to David Bowen’s and see a video of that machine in action, it is a piece of art.

My Preconceptions about 3D Printing

OK, here is where I open myself up to criticism. I have always considered 3D Printing a tremendously valuable tool for developing rapid, inexpensive prototypes. To me, a digital 3D model is a great way to visualize a design, but it is (in the end) still presented on a 2D screen. As much work has been done in adding life-like reality to digital models, there is still something very significant about holding something in your hands. My impression of the 3D printing technologies was a way to quickly make a model of a part to help validate the design of the real part.

What I Have Learned

3D printing is not an area I have spent much time researching, so I may just be behind the curve. But what I am starting to get a glimpse into is the world where 3D printing means serious manufacturing. The post about printing with stainless steel, for example, talks about printing molds for real parts. But then goes further to explain how stainless parts can be printed by a company called Shapeways. I love the term used in one of the blogs, DIY Manufacturing (DIY for “do it yourself”). Clearly this is not going to replace manufacturing as we know it any time soon, but these technologies will certainly have a place and will make an impact.

Implications for Manufacturers

I want to revise something I said above. I now see 3D Printing as a viable manufacturing options in addition to being a prototyping / design validation tool. Both are very valuable and can change the interaction between design and manufacturing. By lowering the barriers between the digital model and the physical part (whether prototype or real) the potential for rapid innovation and design iteration explodes. It also opens up great possibilities to allow parts to be designed in one location and “printed” in another. We have gone from drawings and physical prototypes to digital prototypes. Now, I am starting to imagine a collaboration where one engineer effectively “e-mails” a part to a supplier, or “faxes” a part to another engineer by laser scanning a physical part or prototype and sending the model to be printed. One step further, why can’t I order a 3D model from anywhere in the world and just go to my local printer (unless I have one in my garage) to pick up the part? Who knows, maybe this is already happening somewhere.

So this is clearly an area I need to learn more about, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let me know about it.

What I learned this week … was sparked by a conversation with a friend from the industry over a drink last night. We were discussing the cloud, PLM, multitouch, and IT in general. To be fair, there were other topics of conversation, but he is one of the people that I really respect for his insight into technology. We were discussing my thoughts on PLM in the Cloud, when it finally struck me. Are we going to ruin the design process for experienced engineers by hampering their real-time interaction with the system? Are we heading in the right direction for tomorrow’s engineers?

What Am I Talking About?

Work with me for a minute, this conversation was after only one beer so I think it makes a lot of sense. We were talking about what kids today will expect in the user interface of the future. We were talking about how our kids talk on their headsets and use their game controllers so naturally, doing things we don’t even understand. They are pushing combinations and series of buttons in rapid succession to make things happen in their game – in their virtual world. Then it struck me – why am I so excited about multi-touch and user interfaces that help replicate the real world? Isn’t the whole point of using a computer to go beyond what you can do manually? To super-enable your abilities?

OK, back to CAD and PLM.  Multitouch, 3D manipulation, and motion interfaces are cool. We all saw Iron Man, and we have seen demonstrations of multi-touch CAD. Now I am asking “so what?” OK, I love multitouch (and I want an iPad). But I have a tablet PC with a touch-sensitive screen, and how often do I pull my hands off of the keyboard to touch the screen (hint, no fingerprints on it)? I don’t even like to take my fingers off of the keyboard to grab the mouse, so I have learned a lot of shortcut keys and typeahead tricks. Why? I don’t want to replicate getting a blank piece of paper out of my desk, writing a report on it, making copies, manually distribute it to colleagues for review, and then file it in a file cabinet. The real world is much less efficient than my virtual computer world, so why replicate it in my user interface? OK, we all know the answer. It reduces the learning curve, and it makes interaction more intuitive. But for the experienced user I am going to call that assumption into question (translate as you will).

For the experience user – particularly for the people that grew up using Xbox controllers to manipulate their virtual world in ways they can’t dream of interacting in the real world – we need to do better. Don’t make them touch the screen, take advantage of the fact that they have ten fingers that can all act independently. Give them a motion-sensitive Wii/Xbox-type of controller that they can do ten things at a time with. Track their eye motion. Read their brain waves. The point is to most effectively translate and extend the ideas in the designer’s mind to the system. For the first-time user, multi-touch makes sense. For marketing presentations, the same. For a  day-to-day, interactive interface between an engineer’s fast-moving brain and their high-powered computing equipment it has to be fast and efficient for the experienced user – and that doesn’t necessarily mean natural or intuitive. Particularly when the definition of “intuitive” changes as more of the Xbox generation is sitting in front of the CAD system.

What Does This Have to do with The Cloud?

OK, if you are still with me I appreciate it. I know this has gotten long, and I haven’t even touched on the cloud yet. I will make this brief. I pointed out two types of concerns in my post on PLM and the cloud. One set of concerns was corporate, the other was performance for the user. Let’s relate the concepts above to the real-time performance of an engineer. A lot of the buzz around CAD in the cloud has discussed the challenge of rendering graphics rapidly and getting them back to the engineer. That is a big concern, and I have seen in posts like Josh Ming’s post on SolidSmack about SolidWorks on the cloud that progress is being made.

But what about input performance?  If the goal is to make the human-machine interface as efficient as possible and not distract the engineer from innovating, there can’t be a lag between action and reaction. Part of that lag time is computing/rendering responses. The other is capturing what they are doing. This is where I get concerned about lag times in the cloud. Maybe I need to look back at my son’s Xbox experience and just get over it? But I still have a lingering concern about maintaining real-time user-machine interfaces through the Cloud. I know a lot can be done client-side on the PC or workstation, but I still have to wonder if we are heading the right direction for the real design jocks. Maybe it is too much to ask engineers to learn that level of interaction with their systems, but won’t the Xbox-controller-wielding generation expect that, and won’t it be intuitive to them? If X-A-B-Y-LR-LR-X means pass the football in their game, why couldn’t they learn that means create a thumbnail of my 3D model and check it into the PLM system? Then, I am confident that powerful computing infrastructure (in the cloud or elsewhere) can execute on that.

Implications for Manufacturers

I realize that I may not have given you much that is actionable today, so I will leave you with a thought or two to ponder. All of the new UI ideas are cool, and there are huge benefits for companies to move applications to the cloud. But try before you buy. In your environment. With your infrastructure. And your people. And keep the capabilities of bright, highly talented, gaming savvy, trained, dedicated engineers in mind as you evaluate future user interfaces. Multitouch will have great uses in engineering software, and cloud computing has great promise. But let’s be careful what we ask for so we don’t hamper our future innovators. And for goodness sake, let’s make sure we don’t make them put their hands on the screen unless it is really helping them do something more natural (like sketching) that they can’t do better with an Xbox controller.

So those are my (somewhat random) thoughts, I hope you found them interesting. Do you agree? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

What I learned this week … is a reaction to some of the buzz coming out of SolidWorks World this year. I am not attending the event, but there has been a lot of good reporting from SolidSmack, Ray Kurland, Derrek Cooper,  and others. The word of Day 1, it seems, was “Cloud.” So much in fact that @rtara (Roopinder Tara) suggested on Twitter a new drinking where there are shots taken every time somebody said the word. So now “PLM” and “Cloud” are official buzz. I have not spent much time on this, so I thought I would use this post as a starting point. Is this a brave new world, or just another buzzword to throw around?

The Buzz

Don’t get me wrong, buzz is not bad. As long as their is beef behind the buzz. OK, not that I have hopelessly mixed my metaphors, let’s do some definition.

• Cloud (from Wikipedia, where else?) – Cloud Computing is Internet- (“cloud-”) based development and use of computer technology.  In concept, it is a paradigm shift whereby details are abstracted from the users who no longer have need of, expertise in, or control over the technology infrastructure “in the cloud” that supports them. Cloud computing describes a new supplement, consumption and delivery model for IT services based on the Internet, and it typically involves the provision of dynamically scalable and often virtualized resources as a service over the Internet.
• Cloud (greatly simplified by me) – Is your data and your applications out on the Internet.

It’s not as mysterious as it sounds, data and applications aren’t randomly dispersed, they are just outside of your organization with service provider(s). Any online application can be considered “Cloud Computing.” Amazon is in the cloud. What’s new is that we are talking enterprise applications in the cloud. And even that isn’t so new, salesforce.com is CRM in the cloud, in a “software as a service” or “SaaS” mode. Seems like we could demystify this a bit, no?

So why is there so much buzz? Wouldn’t it be nice to move all of your IT problems outside to someone else? Why wouldn’t you want someone else to worry about capacity, bandwidth, security, OS upgrades, hardware upgrades, etc.? Oleg has also written a lot about the cloud in PLM Twine.

Buzz Kill

So why wouldn’t the cloud make sense? It lowers costs, simplifies infrastructure, and generally relieves a lot of IT burden from the enterprise. I will offer two perspectives:

• Users Want Performance – For the most part, users don’t care where there data is. But they want to be able to get to there information when they need it, and they want it to be available rapidly. If data (and applications) move to the Internet they will need to maintain an acceptable level of performance. For example, I have two e-mail accounts. One I control on my client, the other is “in the cloud.” When my PC decides to download a new virus definition my Internet-based e-mail slows down. Not just downloading/uploading from my client (which is a bit of a pain), but actually typing an e-mail. The same is true as I am writing this blog post. If my bandwidth goes down or my laptop starts hogging resources for something else, I lose my focus on what I am writing and have to focus on getting the words on the page. If I get distracted by performance issues when trying to write a post or an e-mail, how distracting would it be to an engineer trying to solve a design problem?
• Corporations Need Control – Of course we would like to move our IT problems to someone else. But who can we trust? Who will we work with if the performance our users demand isn’t there? Is it the application service provider’s issue, our Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) problem, our network? How do we guarantee our precious product data is safe? Can we trust our service provider’s employees? Is there more inherent risk when my data and my competitors’ data is on the same infrastructure? Facebook made a mistake and gave access to profile data to the wrong people. Oops. What if that was your CAD data? These are just a few of the questions.

None of the issues are insurmountable. We are moving this direction. It has been an evolution, but more and more of what we do is happening off or our personal machines and outside of our firewall. I do think that trend will continue for cost and simplicity purposes. But the infrastructure and business models for the cloud are just developing for areas like PLM. Stay tuned.

Implications for Manufacturers

The implications from my perspective are clear:

• The Cloud is Compelling
• The Cloud Must Perform
• The Cloud Must be Able to Answer some Serious Corporate IT Questions

Look for evolution when it comes to moving PLM to the cloud, not revolution.

So those are some early thoughts on PLM and the Cloud, I hope you found it interesting. This will be an interesting evolution to see unfold. There will be bumps in the road (maybe some big ones), but the benefits are compelling. What do you think? Are you ready to give it a try? Have you?

A quick peek into some feedback on my research on … the Evolving Roles of ERP and PLM in the manufacturing industry. First, thanks to Oleg for his feedback an continuing the ERP-PLM conversation on PLM Think Tank. Oleg made some very good points and provided some good research on the research. But in the spirit of a healthy debate I want to “myth bust” his response. I will address each of the sections in his response idividually, although I split the first one into three responses.

Responses and Reactions

Managing Innovation (Busted) - The title to Oleg’s report does not reflect the thrust of my paper, but he touches on a topic that is near and dear to my heart. He makes a strong point that innovation can’t be managed. I think the first two responses to his post say a lot, particularly the first one, show that this isn’t the case. No, we are not going to automate innovation with a product line of robots. But the energy and time of smart, innovative people can be harnessed and guided to produce more results by following an innovation process. I call this operationalizing innovation. It is about process. Really.

Distinct Roles of ERP and PLM (Busted) - The point that I was making in my paper is that ERP and PLM serve different purposes. PLM helps drive product innovation, ERP helps execute the business of manufacturing. PLM’s primary role is not managing innovation, it is helping companies innovate, develop new products, and engineer them more effectively. These are fundamentally different purposes. Yes, there is overlap. But there are more differences than overlaps. See the table below for more of my thoughts on this.

PLM as a Module of ERP (Busted) - Oleg disagreed with my statement that “PLM is not just another module of ERP” and points out SAP as an example. I disagree strongly with this. SAP tried to introduce PLM as just another module. If they were successful there would be no market for PTC Windchill, Siemens Teamcenter, or Dassault Systemes Enovia. What has SAP done over the last couple of years? SAP  developed a multi-year program to introduce PLM as a complete subystem to ERP instead of a module. See my post Does SAP “Do” PLM? for more on that. Can an ERP vendor provide PLM? Sure. Is it part of the ERP system itself? Not in the near future. Need more proof? Oracle bought Agile instead of developing further on their e-business suite. Busted.

Design and Product Data Management (Confirmed) - The core of PLM is data management. PDM should be rock solid, with very robust security. I do believe that extending to other areas (compliance, costing, etc.) that leverage that core data makes absolute sense. It is like building a house on an unstable foundation, it may look nice but in the end it will collapse.

Cross Funtional Processes (Plausible) – I absolutely agree that processes are organizational.  I believe that business processes absolutely come before software and functionality. I also agree that business processes cross enterprise boundaries (click to see the article with that same name). But my point was – and still is – that companies need to choose which processes will be supported by which solution. Yes, the answer can be that some processes are supported by a combination of the two. And I would love to see business process management (BPM) play a role, even to the point of developing composite applications that leverage the functions of each system. But the point is that there are some overlap areas where companies need to choose. There is more to agree with here than disagree, though.

PLM and ERP Integration (Plausible) – I didn’t go into technical integration in my report. Why? Because I believe that it is more important to get the ownership of data and the alignment of business processes right. This includes addressing semantic differences between the systems. The days where we couldn’t get one machine to talk to the other or data was stored in a proprietary format were the dark days of integration. Today, the technical side of integration is “easy.” By “easy” I mean it is a simple matter of time and money, but it is possible. It no longer requires magic. But it does require effort. And there are some good integration stories between ERP and PLM, but currently it is mostly customer or through integration partners. So we are mostly in agreement here (I think).

Where Does PLM Stop and ERP Begin? (Busted) - Oleg says “don’t even try to put this border.” Unfortunately, as a manufacturer you have to. You have to develop a strategy about which system will address which process (again, it can be a combination). From a vendor perspective there are no boundaries, and I am not suggesting some industry standard footprint of each solution. But for an individual implementation? In some processes you have two tools that can do the job, you have to pick.

Summary
So that was a “quick” reply to Oleg’s comments on my recent research. I hope you found it interesting. I hope you found it entertaining. Mostly I hope you (and Oleg) recognize the good spirit in which this is written. Respectful debate is good for all of us. I appreciate Oleg’s perspective even when I disagree. And more often than not, we agree.

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.

What I learned this week … is that it is time for me to update the sources where I learn about product innovation, product development, engineering, and manufacturing – and the software that supports it (PLM, etc.). So I thought I would look for suggestions. I have always believed that everybody should have more than one source for information, and so I try to make sure to learn from others and share my thoughts. That is why I chose to focus one-third of my blog posts on “What I Learned,” because if I am not learning then I will just regurgitate the same old stuff. I know blogs like that, they get tiring. My approach? “Two ears and one mouth.”

Places to Learn

Given my role as an analyst and researcher, I get a lot of opportunities to learn:

• Manufacturers – obviously I like to hear about the way technology is working in the field, and how it is helping improve a real manufacturing business. I also like to hear about future strategies that manufacturers are putting in place.
• Bloggers – I find that blogs are a great feed of information with opinions. Different bloggers have different levels of credibility, so I take what I read in light of who I hear it from.
• Print Magazines – I have to admit, I like the feel of the paper, but there are fewer of these around. I typically get news feeds from their web sites or blogs.
• Conferences – I love to hear what people have to say in public, and then ask them some questions offline. Very interesting to hear how the “party line” and the “real story” meet up.
• Other Analysts – I like to share ideas and discuss with other analyst firms. I don’t see them as competitors as much as colleagues. This is why I try to include others’ research in my “Research Rap” posts as well as my own. I should probably read more of their printed works, but I am always concerned that they would feel I am stealing their ideas. I don’t think most really feel that way, and I know many that read my work. I should rethink this one.
• Vendors – I believe that most vendors I speak to have deep knowledge and passion about the industries they serve. I love to hear their views on the market, where they think the future of PLM and manufacturing software will be, and how they plan to support it. I respect vendors’ opinions, although of course I realize that they have multiple motives when talking to an analyst.

Your Turn

OK, that is where I turn to you. What I would love to hear from you (via comment here or direct message) is:

• What other sources should I be paying attention to?
• Which people/companies in the above categories should I be listening to?

So those are my thoughts on getting educated on PLM, I hope you found it interesting. I welcome your help.

What I learned this week …serves as a cautionary tale for people responsible for product compliance – PLM can help, but compliance requires a multi-pronged approachthat includes strong data gathering, analysis, and docuumentation capabilities (this is where PLM comes in) but also intelligent supply chain relationships and physical validation. This reminder came to me courtesy of AP Enterprise: US buyers must beware in China. The article is a good read, although I had some issues about their dig on 3rd party testing. Their point is you have to know what you are looking for in order to test for it – isn’t that what RoHS, REACH, the SIN list, and countless other lists of substances of concern are all about? Otherwise, some excellent points and examples.

What PLM Can Do

As my previous post discussed, PLM solutions help by Making Product Compliance Sustainable. In other words, PLM helps companies achieve product compliance without excessive compliance cost. Developing products that meet REACH, RoHS, and other compliance challenges requires manufacturers to:

• Identify Requirements
• Document Product Structures / BOMs
• Gather and Validate Component Data from the Supply Chain
• Analyze Products and Perform What If Analysis
• Mitigate Risk
• Document Compliance and Achieve Auditability

Most PLM solutions can play a significant role in documenting products and BOMs. Other, more capable PLM systems have added features to help companies collect and analyze compliance information in the context of the product design and product lifecyle. Clearly, PLM is a major benefit for compliance.

What PLM Can’t Do

What PLM can’t do is ensure that the data is accurate. As the example in the AP article shows, there are unscrupulous suppliers who are polluting supply chains with improperly identified, toxic materials. No enterprise solution alone can prevent this. Reducing exposure to these problems requires:

• Knowledgeable supply chain personnel
• Validation

PLM can still help in these regards, but it is not the primary tool. For example, PLM can be used to document physical tests in the context of the product record and analyze data for inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies. Some PLM systems also manage supplier records that can be used to document vendor audits and other supply-chain validation functions. But in the end, compliance can’t be based on blind faith in PLM data.

Implications for Manufacturers

PLM is a big part of the answer to reduce product compliance risk. Manufacturers can also leverage compliance information to reduce product and component supply risk. But in the end, having the right data is only part of the challenge. Virtual validation such as documentation and BOM analysis must be accompanied by scanning and/or destructive testing to be sure. Testing should be risk-based, but should also continue throughout the product lifecycle and supplier relationship.

So manufacturers will have to keep on guard, and not just in China. I hope you found it interesting. Let us know what this looks like from your perspective.

What I learned this week … came after long reflection on my predictions for product innovation in 2010. As you may have noticed from the sparse number of posts in December, I must have been doing a lot of reflecting! I decided to look back at my 2008 research at Aberdeen Group called “The Product Innovation Agenda 2010″ to see whether or not my predictions came true, and bust those that didn’t. I hope you find it interesting. For a look at my take on this last year, please see the post What I Learned: Product Innovation and Engineering “2009 Style.”

Disclaimer on my Lack of a Crystal Ball

First, I want to say that my predictions were not based on a crystal ball or some supposed deep insight into the world of product innovation. As a researcher, I always find it better to ask the people who know the answer instead of guessing. In this case, I surveyed manufacturers about their plans for improving product innovation, product development, and engineering between 2008 and 2010. Then, I compared what the leading companies were doing – and planning to do – differently than average and poorer performing companies.

Predictions and Outcomes

Based on the prior research, here are my thoughts on where we stand as a manufacturing and engineering community against our plans for 2010:

Overall, I feel pretty good about how well the study predicted where companies would focus their efforts. Clearly companies made adjustments based on the economy, but the fact that PLM can help both the top-line and bottom-line was a big benefit.

What Did I Miss?

I missed the impact that social computing would have on product innovation processes. The report touched on open innovation and standardizing innovation processes, but I didn’t ask the right questions to see how the explosion of social networking would impact product innovation. I am not sure that if I asked the right questions that manufacturers would have been able to predict the boom in these technologies and their applicability to product development. I hope that I have made up for my miss by reporting on the trend in posts such as Going Social with Product Development, Social Computing Drives Innovation, Social Innovation in Simple Terms, and Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Study Good Sign for Social Computing in PLM. This is a space to watch in 2010 and companies plan on how to compete in 2011 and beyond.

Implications for Manufacturers

Last year I saw companies adopt a “survive and thrive” approach to innovation due to the down economy. The economic downturn forced companies to run lean and many had to downsize. But many companies I studied were keeping at least a subset of their resources on future innovation to be ready for the return of the market. I noticed that the long-term strategies for PLM were the same, but companies were shifting PLM strategies to short-term tactics to reduce cost and get the most out of existing resources.

Predictions for 2011 and Beyond

This year:

• I expect to see continued emphasis on innovation and PLM.
• I believe many companies will be picking up where they left off with PLM strategies, but maintaining their focus on keeping costs in check.
• PLM will continue to expand, as discussed in What I Learned: PLM, Please Take 3 Giant Steps Forward, and will play a large role in helping companies improve product innovation, product development, and engineering on a broad scale.
• Social computing will have a profound impact on product innovation, and 2010 will see many initiatives exploring the value that the intersection of web 2.0 technologies and process have with PLM.

So those are my thoughts on the past, present and future. I hope you found it interesting. What does 2010 and beyond look like to you?