What I learned as a follow up to my report on Product Data Accessibility is that there is a lot more angst about finding product data than I ever realized. I was amazed at the discussion generated by my blog post about accessing all product data regardless of how it is stored. In particular, there as a lot of PDA discussion on LinkedIn. For those that can’t access it (I was told you have to join the group) I decided to share some of what I learned from it here.

What I Learned

One of the key findings of the report was that “accessing product data and centralizing it are not absolutely linked.” That really seems to resonate with people. One person I spoke with (Skype, not in the LinkedIn thread or my comments) reiterated that point, saying that “you need control, but regardless of where you are with that you have to be able to find data.” That brings up some interesting thoughts about PDM. My report on the business value of Product Data Management highlights controlling/securing data, finding/reusing data, and sharing data as primary benefits of PDM. There is clearly overlap in finding/reusing data between PDM and PDA. My view is that PDM and PDA are complementary solutions, and the discussion seems to indicate that there is no requirement to have one in place before the other, either can help regardless of whether the other is in place. One example brought up in the LinkedIn group is how useful search can be after an acquisition, and not having to wait for systems to be migrated. This need (and opportunity) was echoed by others.

Time for a Maturity Model?

I have seen maturity models for PDM and PLM (among others), but given a lot of the comments and the research for the report about the need for product data accessibility I thought I would take a stab at a few levels of accessibility:

1. The Wild, Wild West – No formal accessibility strategy. From the discussions I have had, this is very common. Searching on document names and looking for things where they are “supposed to be.”
2. Basic Search – Ability to search for information in known locations based on known parameters, perhaps with some full text search thrown in.
3. Advanced Search – A formal strategy based on an index, most likely including helpful capabilities like saved and shared searches. One comment mentioned Zakta.com that offers guides for searches, although I am not familiar with the solution (but I guess I should be). I am feeling a matrix might be applicable here, though, because there are different approaches that include text, attributes, metadata, or shape (like what ShapeSpace or Siemens PLM’s Geolus solution offers), and I am sure others.
4. Access and Aggregate – Accessing disparate data and pulling it together to get a more full view of the product. Perhaps this is two levels, depending on the intelligence behind the aggregation, or maybe there is another matrix forming here. For example, using semantics to intelligently discover relationships like Inforbix does is more powerful than simply aggregating on part numbers.
5. Search Based Applications – Accessing, aggregating, and acting on product data. This would include Search based applications (SBA) such as Dassault Systemes’ Exelead (focused more broadly products) and Inforbix xApps. Perhaps another capability that belongs here (or another level?) is the ability to develop composite applications that can both access and update underlying data? Or maybe that belongs somewhere else, not sure.

Implications for Manufacturers

I am not suggesting that the above is ready for prime time, it needs some work in order to really be robust. And no maturity model should really include a level called “the Wild, Wild West.” But I hope it serves as a way to get people thinking about the different ways companies can access, aggregate, and use their product data to drive more business value.

I don’t see this as a replacement for centralizing and controlling product data. One commenter even mentioned it would be nice to link data to workflows. That starts to sound like  PDM and PLM to me. In fact, I think we will see incorporation of these capabilities in PLM, as well as offer independently. The value is clear, and there are options to pursue, so it’s time to take a look.

So those are some thoughts on product data accessibility, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it. Another good resource on the topic is the Inforbix product data space blog. For full disclosure, Inforbix is a client, but they didn’t ask for this mention and I bring it up because Oleg has really taken the time to explore this issue and communicate about it. Let me know what you think.

I had the chance to talk with … Prashant Jagtap, CEO of Trayak, about designing products for sustainability. Prashant is a veteran of the PLM industry, and he and I had a great discussion about how design for sustainability fits into PLM. This post will share a bit of that discussion as well as a bit about Trayak.

Why is PLM the Place for Sustainable Design?

First, I want to share some of my discussion with Prashant on a general basis. I am a big proponent of getting compliance and sustainability right during product design. Why? Because like so many other product attributes, sustainability is really hard to accomplish once the design is locked in. Material choices and manufacturing process decisions clearly have a significant influence on the environmental impact of a product. They are also very difficult to change after a product has bee designed because late product changes often sub-optimize a lot of previous design decisions which can increase cost, degrade product performance, or at a minimum cause a lot of disruption through engineering changes (ECOs).

So earlier is better. But why in PLM?  Simply put, PLM is where the product data is. PLM has the bill of material (BOM) early in the product lifecycle. As PLM has matured it has extended to capture the manufacturing processes in a bill of process (BOP) as well. That is the right core of information required to conduct an effective lifecycle analysis (LCA). As the Tech-Clarity compliance/sustainability diagram above shows, making the right decisions requires a combination of product information and impact data. To me, this is an obvious extension of PLM. In fact, environmental compliance and sustainability is the example I use most frequently when I discuss the four dimensions of PLM expansion.

What does Trayak Do?

So other than sharing some common philosophy about how manufacturers can design more sustainable products, Prashant was excited to tell me about the progress Trayak is making. Their goal is to “make sustainable product design mainstream.” The idea is to put the right tools and information into engineers’ hands (or at least their desktops) so they can understand the environmental impact of their design decisions. Trayak believes that the current LCA tools are too complex, too expensive, require experts, and are too separated from the design process. I believe changing that could have a profound effect. Engineers would love to make more eco-friendly products, but face a myriad of tradeoffs and typically don’t have the right information at hand. How can you optimize what you don’t understand? How can you design for sustainability when you don’t know the impact of your decisions until after the fact? To me, solving those problems is the value Trayak has to offer.

What do they Offer?

Trayak offers three products:

• EcoDesigner – helping engineers design for compliance using LCA techniques
• EcoLabel – a tool to help grade BOMs and provide labeling information for compliance (for EPEAT regulations)
• EcoScore – a broader solution that collects a wide range of factors/criteria about environmental impact (which could include LCA results) which could also be used to create scoring mechanisms to rate their product portfolio as they evaluate greener design options

Who do they Work with?

Here, to me, are two valuable facts about Trayak:

• They understand CAD and PLM, and have integrated into Siemens PLM tools (including Teamcenter and Solid Edge) – Prashant’s history and experience play a big role here
• They are LCA agnostic – Trayak does not believe that there is one right way to do LCA. In fact, they believe that some companies may already have a source of LCA information. Trayak is partnering with EcoInvent for data, but is built with the expectation that they will work with multiple sources of information. A very interesting approach. As more OEMs start to demand LCA information, what are the chances that suppliers will have to support more than one set of LCA calculations? Pretty good, I bet.

So that’s what I hear from Trayak, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them? Do you think the open approach to LCA will make a difference?

I had an opportunity to share ideas and experience about product cost management and product profitability with Eric Hiller. Eric responded to my post on PLM and Product Cost Management (PCM) and we have shared some great dialogue following that. Eric has some great experience in this area and I asked him if he would like to share it. I hope you enjoy it!

The following is a guest post from Eric Hiller:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure, cost is important… but I have a lot of other things to do, too.

I’ve been fascinated by the problem of product cost since 1996. I did my graduate work on the subject, I considered it when I was a young engineer at Ford Motor Company, I started a company that makes product that helps companies make their products more profitable, and I have been a consultant to executives in Fortune 500 companies on the subject of product cost management. I’ve learned a lot of lessons in those endeavors, but one of the most interesting is:

Product Profit is NOT as Important as One Might Think

I know that’s pretty shocking to say, especially for a guy who is fascinated by the subject of Product Profit.  But it’s true… or at least it’s true in a relative sense versus other product attributes that the product development team must meet.

The statement above also seems surprising given that we have been taught for years that the purpose of business is to make money for the owners, and money for the owners comes from free cash flow, and free cash flow comes from profit, and profit comes when expenses are less than revenue, and in most manufacturing companies, Product Cost (roughly equivalent to Cost of Goods Sold for the finance types reading this post) is 70-90% of revenue.

Considering my rough Aristotelian logic in the last sentence, why wouldn’t we assume that product cost is, indeed, the most important thing to business? (I’m being a bit facetious in my rhetorical question to prove a point here.) The point is that there are many other things that go into making a successful business, even from the product development-only standpoint.  These include:

• product performance
• time-to-market
• quality
• safety/compliance
• number of features of the product
• product profitability
• development cost

In product development, most teams have to balance all these goals.    We can see this from Tech Clarity’s 2011 report on product development tradeoffs in Figure 1.  When you ask the average executive in product development, they are concerned with a multitude of issues.   Even the least important category below (Product Sustainability/Green Initiatives) has almost 50% interest from executives.  (Note that I consider manufacturability to be a concern that is very closely aligned and/or drives product cost.)

Figure 1 – What Product Development Executives are Concerned About

But, which of these goals is that the MOST important goal.  Michelle Boucher at Aberdeen Group gauged the sentiment of product development executives in November 2010 on this question. Here are the results that she found (Figure 2), when she asked 312 respondents to pick “The top business pressure driving their company to have better insight into decision-making during product development.”

Figure 2 – What is the MOST important concern to product development managers?

Source: Aberdeen Group

I particularly like this survey question, because it forces the respondents to pick the most important. There’s a couple of interesting things here. First, if we look at the results of this survey versus similar questions asked in the past, we will see that the focus on product cost and profitability is less than it was a year or two ago. Hopefully, this is indicative that the economy might just be starting to show little signs of recovery. Second, notice that when the survey forced the respondents to rank the importance of goals in an ordinal way, the focus of PD executives is still fairly balanced across the different goals that we discussed in the bullets above. In fact, if we combined “customer demand for lower product costs” and “need to lower development costs” together, the total focus on cost or profitability of the organization is about 27%, which makes it almost identical to the other four focuses.

This data matches my own experience in talking to hundreds of customers over the last eight years. In the highly unscientific and intuitive statistics cruncher in my brain, if I combined all the feedback (direct and implied) that I have gotten to the same question, I would say the ordinal ranking of the average product development organization, whether spoken or unspoken, is as follows:

• Safety/compliance (required to sell product at all!)
• Time-to-market
• Quality
• Product performance
• Number of features of the product
• Product profitability
• Development cost

In fact, when I asked the question directly to several product development executives, this is almost exactly the order they gave me, although often they will not list every one of these attributes in their answer.

So what does this mean?

Does it mean that product cost and profitability are unimportant things? No. It simply means that sometimes they may be less important than other goals. So how do we make progress in product development and delivery of corporate profitability, given that product cost is the least favorite subject of many design engineers?

I suggest the following simple framework:

1. Set the required level needed for each of the other attributes, except for product cost / profitability
2. Set a minimum level target for product profitability, but think of product profitability in your mind as the variable you are optimizing.
3. Execute on meeting the goals for the non-product cost attributes actively first, while monitoring product profitability and evaluating each choice made about a non-cost attribute, asking “Will this decision make my product profitability go up or down?”

Those of us who come from a background of optimization probably remember that it is very hard to optimize on more than one variable at a time. Therefore, the typical way to make progress practically on a optimization problem with multiple goals (which is exactly what product development is), is to set some hard constraints (Attribute Targets) for all the variables but one, and then run the optimization to maximize or minimize that last variable of interest (in this case product profit or cost, respectively).

A simple conceptual graphic of this framework is shown below.  In the green ovals we show lines of equal product profit.  We’d like to climb the hill to maximum profit, but there are real world constraints on the level of our other product attributes (e.g. time-to-market). This leaves us a tan shaded region where all our non-cost targets are met.  In my suggested framework, the team first works to get into the shaded region and then starts making choices to meet (and optimize) the last target of product profitability.  The axes represent two choices the team is making, but we know that the team will really be making thousands of choices (it’s just hard to represent that in 2D).

Figure 3 – Graphical Representation of meeting product development targets as constraints, while optimizing product cost and profit

This approach may sound like common sense to some people, and if so, great!  However, don’t let the point pass you by without internalizing it a bit.  One of the blinding flashes of the obvious from David Allen’s book Getting Things Done is that the human brain just can’t let go of something important until it is written down or handled.  So, one of his first rules is that you have to “write it down.”  Similarly, instead of letting Product Profitability be that nagging voice that keeps distracting everyone, companies can simply “write it down,’ too.  That is, they should set a maximum product cost target and keep checking it in the rear view mirror, while keeping the immediate goals of Safety/compliance, Time-to-market, Quality, and Product performance, etc. in the front windshield view.

This may sound like a nuance, but I still often get the question “How do I balance my product cost targets with all the other targets I have in product development?”  Years ago, I was perplexed what to tell the questioner other than “Make product cost your top priority.”  That was not a realistic solution to the real concern.  Eventually, after thinking through the problem and observing the culture of product development, I came up with the simple framework we are discussing.  When I have explained this framework to product development teams at past clients and customers, it seems to make people feel much more at ease and helps people regain a sense of control.

Obviously, one could change the framework to make any product development attribute or target the ‘to be optimized’ variable, just as easily.  But given the immediacy of the challenges of program timing, quality, and performance, it seems that making product cost the optimization variable works best for most product development teams.  Sometimes, we just have to learn by experience.

Eric

(p.s. I still think Product Cost Management is really important!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So that is what Eric has to say, I hope you found it interesting. Are we really too busy to care about cost? Do we just believe that profitability is more about top-line issues by having the right product? Let us know how you feel about it.

One of my favorite parts of going to conferences is learning what cool projects, products, and other cool accomplishments manufacturers have leveraged PLM for. In addition to sharing some very positive news on the market (see PLM Keeping up Momentum: Siemens PLM Analyst Conference 2011)  the recent Siemens PLM analyst event showcased a number of Siemens’ customers getting real business value from PLM. I thought I would share a few examples with you. And if you want, you can hear for yourself how excited I was in this interview with Dora Smith of Siemens PLM.

Aerojet

One of the great things about PLM is that it can solve a wide variety of problems. In Aerojet‘s case, PLM is helping improve product quality. I blogged about Siemens Dimensional Planning and Validation (DPV) solution in Circling Back on Quality with Siemens PLM and more generally about the significant benefits available from integrating Quality Lifecycle Management (QLM) in PLM. It was great to hear a first hand example of how a company is bringing quality and engineering together, or “closing the loop on quality.” One of the really cool things – which unfortunately we didn’t actually see an example of because Aerojet serves the defense industry – is that they now display quality information (SPC data) in the context of the product – in this case graphically displaying it against a JT model of the product. John Hodur, Principle Quality Engineer explained how Aerojet is integrating inspection results with tolerance results to develop tolerance stackups using actual data. A great example of how PLM is expanding into new areas, and integrating new people and processes into Engineering.

Edison2

Sometimes at conferences you not only get to hear about cool projects, you get to hear from really cool people. Yes, this is a conference focused on the intersection of engineering and software and I said cool. Really cool. The presenter was not only an engineer that worked on a really cool project to design a ground-breaking, record setting light car, but also a race car driver. So we have gone from rocket scientists to race car drivers in one post. He explained how Edison2 won the Progressive Insurance X Prize contest to build the most fuel-efficient and  safe car that can carry four passengers and luggage. The results were impressive. What was also impressive was how excited he was at the toolset he used, Solid Edge. He explained how the new Synchronous  Technology in Solid Edge helped them rapidly design (and more importantly redesign) the car as they went through multiple design iterations.

Rolls Royce

Another great PLM facet highlighted at the conference was integration of PLM into other systems and the positive impact it has on quality. Gordon McKechnie expressed that Rolls Royce is critical to their customers and that its products “work in industries where if a product fails it is no OK.” What an understatement! He explained that to pursue high quality – yet still maintain a very competitive cost – Rolls Royce wants to have one system managing the product across the enterprise. He explained that they have lots of point systems, but are driving to a single source of data. This is not just for PLM as most people think of it – they believe in “totally integrated PLM” that expands from product design all the way into manufacturing. In his words, “integration is key, and integration is a problem today.” A problem that Rolls Royce is leading the charge to overcome. To that end, Rolls Royce is on the leading edge of ERP-MES integration and uses both Siemens’ Teamcenter PLM and Simatic IT MES solutions. Oh and just so you don’t think we went from rockets to cars and didn’t include anything else cool, Rolls Royce makes aircraft engines – another pretty cool (and highly complex) product. Just in case you thought they made cars…

So that’s what I hear from Siemens PLM’s customers. There were other stories as well, but these were the ones that I decided to share. What do you think? Pretty cool stuff? What have you done with PLM?

What I learned this week … was that there is still innovation in innovation-focused events! Last year, I heard from two separate friends about a new event they participated in that they thought was fantastic. Instead of the usual physical conference, they attended a virtual event. This wasn’t the first virtual event I had heard of (I have attended a few and present over the web frequently) – but this was the first one that I heard get high praise.

<Updated to correct my glaring typo – thanks Jenna>

The Event

The event from last year was called Pipeline. It included a series of speakers that rivaled any you would find at an onsite conference. In addition, it had virtual booths that allowed you to get information and interact with speakers and sponsors. Why was this event so much more interesting than others? I have to admit, I don’t know the answer. But they did a few things right:

• The platform for the event was built for this purpose
• The speakers were educational, not giving product pitches
• There is an opportunity to chat with the speakers, perhaps better access than at a physical conference where they have another session to attend
• The sponsors were there to educate as well
• The organizers focus on putting on a great event, not trying to steal the limelight
• They had over 1,000 people attend

In general, it wasn’t a sales pitch wrapped up like a conference. In fact, I wasn’t sure who organized it before looking into it a little bit deeper. Well done. I usually don’t get those kind of unsolicited, positive comments on anything related to a conference.

My Opportunity to Participate (and Yours)

This year, I was surprised to get a phone call from Planview (a portfolio management vendor, a Pipeline sponsor, and also the company that organizes the event). I told them how impressed I was with the conference and was surprised to find out they were asking me to participate. I am happy to say I will be presenting on Social Computing and the Product Lifecycle at Pipeline2011! I plan to attend as well, there are some great speakers. You can register for Pipeline2011 here, it is free to attend and you don’t have to leave the comfort of your office (no travel expenses, and no hangover from staying out to late at the conference).

So I am looking forward to speaking, and also attending. This is a pretty unique event. Who knew that there were such well received virtual events? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

What I learned this week … came from a great conversation with Sankar from Younomy. I have been in a number of conversations recently that make me realize that the world of social computing is looking into social product development and social innovation as much as the PLM and manufacturing communities are looking into the social computing world. Still with me? Sorry, that was a mouthful. You can read Sankar’s interview of Jim Brown (me) on social computing and product development on Younomy here and learn more by reading this collection of social computing in PLM posts on my site.

Who is Looking at Who?

What I realized is that we are all trying to learn from each other. Manufacturers are trying to learn from what other companies are doing, and other companies are interested in some of the early initiatives from manufacturers. To me, this is just another reminder of how new social computing is. I am fortunate to sit in both camps – the advancement of social computing in business and the maturation of PLM. That is why the intersection of social computing and PLM is so interesting to me.

Implications for Manufacturers
One of the key points that I made in the interview was that I see the greatest value not from one side or the other (social computing or PLM). I believe that the most significant improvements to product innovation, product development, and engineering performance will come from linking social interactions with product data. That’s why I pay so much attention to what PTC, Siemens, Dassault Systemes, Vuuch, Sopheon, and others are doing in this space. That is the where the real power is unleashed. Generic tools will be helpful, but by connecting the two we get:

• A product-focused discussion that directly helps develop better products
• A source of product knowledge (the discussion itself) that can be captured and reused into the future

It was great to have an opportunity to discuss this with Sankar to remind me how passionate I am about the potential of taking the concepts of things like Facebook and applying them to product development. I hope you found the discussion (and the interview) interesting.

Taking a look around at the engineering software market there are a few things that are clear and a lot of unanswered questions. One clear fact is that 2010 was a lot better than 2009 for most manufacturers and the engineering software vendors that serve them. From early indications, 2011 is looking even better. But there is still trepidation and a sense that things are still not settled. So what will happen to the market? What are companies doing about the uptick? How will they react, and what will the impacts be?

The Research Findings – 2009-2010

Tech-Clarity, Cyon Research, and Design Insight presented survey findings at last two COFES (Congress for the Future of Engineering Software) gatherings. These events bring together a great collection of people that are passionate about CAD, CAE, CAM, PLM, BIM, and other related topics. The research always generates some very interesting discussion. For example, in 2009 a discussion on the impact of the economy on smaller PLM and engineering software vendors sparked some hot debate between large and smaller vendors. In 2010 we reported that the smaller vendors who predicted they would “struggle but survive” were right. We also reported that the channels and VARs were hurt the most in 2009, and were the least optimistic about 2010. Follow the links above for some more insight. Looking back I am pleased at the job the collective wisdom of the survey participants has done in predicting the future of the market. After all, we are the market!

Research for 2011 – Share your Views!

Now, the time has come to gather data for COFES 2011 coming up in April of this year. This is where you come in. Please take the 2011 survey on the engineering software market to share your perspective. We want to hear from manufacturers, engineering firms, vendors, VARs, consultants, bloggers, other analysts, press, and anyone else that plays a role in this market. Help us find out if the channels and VARs were right to be concerned about 2010, and what strategies companies are adopting that may impact them further in 2011. We will share the results at COFES and then I will share my thoughts with you here.

So that was a quick peek into some past research, I hope you found it interesting. More importantly, I hope you participate in this year’s research. And I hope to see you at COFES in April to share some more lively discourse on the future of the engineering software market.

What I learned this week … from a video by Kalypso called Social Product Innovation: It’s More than Facebook further validates that social computing is making a big impact on product development. As one participant from Boeing said emphatically in a discussion I led at COFES a while back, “We are not going to design a plane on Facebook!” I agreed then and still agree now. But the video makes some strong statements based on a research study published by Kalypso that shows that social media, web 2.0, and enterprise 2.0 technologies are being adopted in product innovation and making a positive impact. And Facebook may play a role after all…The Research

Strap on your seatbelt and launch the video. It is a fast-paced ride that highlights a lot of great points about social product innovation. I will try to capture a few of them here, but the video (and the underlying paper) are worth a look. Note, you can download the paper from the Kalypso “SPIKE” site but you have to scroll down a bit below the video to find it and provide your contact details.

Kalypso defines social product innovation in two ways in the video:

• As one of their clients defines it: “open innovation combined with the Internet“
• Their definition: Social Media + Product Development = Social Product Innovation

I think the Kalypso definition is a bit broader and more to the point. The benefits of social computing in product development span from the use of innovation portals all the way to engineering collaboration, or Collaboration 2.0 as I have called it. The video commentary defines two main ways that companies are using social product innovation:

1. Web 2.0 – Public networks including things like blogs, wikis, and social media sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, and twitter
2. Enterprise 2.0 – Secure networks that can also be shared with partners / suppliers – communities of practice -knowledge sharing, collective problem solving; using technologies like SharePoint, videoconferencing, instant messaging, and electronic white boards

The video also shares some great statistics from the report, and mentions some of the companies that are leading the way in the use of social product innovation, including SPIKE award winner Kimberly-Clark who I interviewed here.

Implications for Manufacturers

There is a movement underway to explore the use of social computing in product innovation. The research indicates that over 70% of companies are using social media in product innovation or planning to do so. That is a significant number of companies. Perhaps more importantly, they are reporting benefits including more product ideas, better product ideas, faster time to market, reduced product development cost, and more. Most companies have started small, but they are also planning to do more next year. This is really something that shouldn’t be ignored.

So just for fun, let’s get back to Facebook. I have made some bold claims that Facebook is not the right platform for social computing in product development, including Why Does Facebook Fail for Product Development?. In my report Going Social with Product Development,I go into more detail on why I think the concepts behind Facebook are winners in product innovation, product development, engineering, and product lifecycle management (PLM). But what about Facebook itself? Well, I have to admit that corporate sites in Facebook are being used for open innovation. It is only one part of the puzzle, but it can play a role – particularly in consumer-oriented companies. It still fails for the majority of the back-end process where an understanding of product development processes and integration to product information are critical. But I guess I am softening up a little on the front end. Let’s face it, there is no “one tool” that is going to meet everyone’s needs from open innovation to product development and design collaboration and then back out to product launch.

So I was happy to share some evidence on the adoption of social product innovation from Kalypso, I hope you found it interesting. I have asked whether or not 2011 is the year social computing will explode in PLM, so this is a big area of interest for me. The early indications are positive for 2011, we will have to see what happens. Let us know what you think about it, or what you are doing about it.

What I learned this week … came after reflecting on this video on social computing in PLM I ran across on PTC’s website. I spent a significant amount of my time and energy last year trying to understand the implications of the social networking explosion on product innovation, product development, and engineering. It was interesting to listen to the podcast with the benefit of time moving on a bit to reassess the situation and see what will likely happen in 2011. So what happens next?

Brief Background and Views

Take a look at the video, but my viewpoint in a nutshell is:

• Social networking and social media have ramped up significantly in our personal lives (Facebook, YouTube, etc.)
• Social computing is continuing to gain ground in work environments and applications (LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.)
• Product innovation is a team sport (inherently requiring collaboration and cross-functional participation)
• Facebook and similar tools aren’t appropriate for new product development (NPD), but the concepts are (see Facebook fail post)
• The content for the social interaction around product development and engineering is the product (making it a natural to integrate it with PLM)
• Early adopters are on the move and gaining benefits (see early results from the Spike research I worked on with Kalypso)

My Crystal Ball Says 2011 Will Bring…

First, I don’t have a crystal ball and I can’t see the future. All I can do is tell you that this is one of the most obvious directions companies will take. This is as close to a “no-brainer” as they come. I do believe that social computing is happening in product innovation and NPD and will continue to expand. The tie to product data is also intuitive to me, although it will take more time and work. So here are my thoughts:

• Collaboration – This will happen sooner rather than later, it is the proverbial “low hanging fruit.” Companies will leverage generalized applications like Microsoft SharePoint, as well as specialty applications like Vuuch. The PLM vendors are actively working here as well, including PTC with SocialLink and Dassault Systemes with SwYm, and Siemens PLM. Integration to product data and existing PLM process will take longer, but the direction has been set. With so many companies still trying to get the basics in place (let’s face it, there are a lot of product data management (PDM) projects still in the works to put the foundation in place) I don’t think that this will cross into the majority this year, but there will be a lot of projects going on.
• Discovery - Finding ideas, people, and information internally is coming. While collaboration is typically within the known product development or engineering team, discovery extends this to a broader group. I think we will see progress on this in 2011. This can start relatively easy with discussion groups and innovation portals. I see a lot of companies experimenting with this. I believe a lot of this will be internally focused, however, which doesn’t stretch business models or existing processes but enhances them.
• Product Knowledge Management -This is an interesting one, and I think it will take longer. The promise here is not only to collaborate and discover, but to capture that interaction for future reference. This requires integrating the interactions back into the product record and storing them. The value is there, but it has to be done in a coordinated, integrated fashion so will take longer (in my opinion).
• Community, VOC, New IP -Developing external communities and gathering ideas from the outside is something I have always said will take longer. I am rethinking that. It requires people to think differently and develop new business models. But I have seen innovative companies get behind this.  For example, Kimberly-Clark talks about an innovative program in this interview. My opinion has changed as I view this as a standalone initiative. Full integration to innovation processes and NPD (and particularly engineering) will likely take longer, but a good idea that doesn’t require a huge investment is not going to wait in an innovative company. I see vendors like Brightidea, Congistreamer, Imaginatik, Spigit, and a host of others making an impact here in addition to the traditional companies.

Implications for Manufacturers

Things are happening. The world is changing the way we communicate, and the leaders will find a way to be more innovative and drive higher levels of profitability. Innovation has started and will continue. When? That is the big question. My crystal ball only works backwards (researching what has already happened). But I think we will see a lot of progress this year. Check back with me in 2012 when my crystal ball (aka rearview mirror) is working.

So those are my thoughts for 2011, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think, or more importantly what you are planning to do about it!

What I learned this week … came from some reflection on PDM-less PLM: Is It Pragmatic or Just Problematic? on engineering-matters. Chad Jackson raises some great questions about whether PLM can be achieved without PDM. I wanted to share some of my thoughts on managing product data and managing product-related processes. I don’t think you can draw such a hard line between processes and data. This brings me back to a lot of my conversations with Oleg in PLM think tank on which is more important – data or business processes.

A Better Definition for PLM

First things first. Chad references the definitions of PDM and PLM in Wikipedia. I will save you the trouble of looking them up, they are entirely circular definitions.

They  just take the words in the acronym and expand them into sentence structure. While there is some good information in the entries, defining PDM as “managing product data” (paraphrased) and PLM as “managing the lifecycle of a product” (and adding some color to what lifecycle means) is pretty worthless. That is what I call one of the “Myths of PLM.” Here is what I use:

• PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) is a software-enabled strategy to improve processes to conceptualize, design, develop, and manage products and drive higher levels of product profitability.

I find this more useful because I don’t think that anybody ever earned one more penny by “managing the lifecycle of a product.” They make money by effectively bringing innovative products to market. The other definition makes it sounds like implementing PLM is an end to itself, and not a means to an end. Is that important? When I continue to see people implementing software (PLM and others) for the sake of the software and no concept of what business value they will get from it, I say yes. OK, I will now step down from my soapbox. And while I am on the soapbox, I have to admit that I don’t really care that much about the definition of PDM. To me, PDM is just the data management portion of PLM (see the definition above). Don’t get me wrong, it is vitally important, I just think it needs to in the context of business value.

Who Cares about Acronyms?

PLM, in my opinion, started as the maturation of PDM. Once companies had their data under control, wasn’t it just natural to try to do something with it? Starting with adding engineering change control, perhaps, as a starting point? Many would argue today, of course, that change control is a basic function of PDM. So where does PDM end and PLM start? PLM was developed as PDM that understood processes, as I think Chad would agree. Now, the lines between PDM and PLM are really blurry. PDM is core capability of most PLM suites. Can you have PDM without PLM? Of course. Can you have processes without underlying data? I don’t think so. There are clearly PDM solutions that are just focused on managing product data, particularly 3D CAD. If it doesn’t add process on top, is that a basic PLM system that handles PDM or a different kind of system. Once you add processes to it, does it change? I don’t see it. PDM is a capability of a PLM solution.

The Real Questions? Engineering Data Management and Integration?

Clearly process-oriented applications are acting on something. They need data. So maybe the real question is do you need to manage CAD data to have PLM? I would say that you need PDM capabilities to run in a 3D CAD environment effectively, see my Managing Engineering Data report. But do you have to have CAD? No, as many companies in the process and CPG industries have proven by getting value from PLM when CAD is not at the core of their products. But they do have a lot of product data that needs to be managed. So do you need rich product data to run processes? No. But as Chad points out, people need access to product data. The more product information available (to the right people at the right time) provides value.

So maybe the real question is integration? Can you have a PLM solution that includes a PDM system from one vendor and process enablement from another that sits on top? As Chad says, integrating “these two systems”? I suppose that a PLM solution can be integrated from a best-of-breed PDM with processes added on top, but isn’t that just a PLM system “mashed up” by integrating solutions from two vendors? Yes, its possible. But is it practical? To me, the rich integration of product data and processes is a big part of the value available from PLM (or any enterprise application).

Implications for Manufacturers

Chad hits the nail on the head with his conclusion. The conclusion is a resounding “it depends.” You need to understand what you are trying to accomplish in your business and then find applications that support it. My guess is that leads to both data and processes together. Maybe not CAD data, although if you have it then it needs to be managed anyway and why not have it integrated. But the plan on what to implement when – the path to PLM – should be based on business requirements and business value.

So those are my thoughts on PDM and PLM, I hope you found it interesting. I realize they are a bit scattered, maybe I am missing something. Or maybe I just don’t care that much acronyms.