Clarity on PLM

Join me this week or a quick peek into some of my research in one (or more) of several PLM-related webcasts this week. I will be joined by some great speakers that will share their views as well. I am not sure why this week is so densely packed with web presentations, but it should give everyone an opportunity to tune in and get a perspective on a few different interesting topics! We have product innovation, product development, product documentation, engineering, and more. Last week a podcast on the business value of PLM, now a handful of webcasts – Mom I have gone multimedia!

The Topics

• Tuesday (2:00 PM, Eastern US) – The Five Dimensions of Product Complexity – Jim Brown of Tech-Clarity will present with Matt Greene of Siemens PLM on the trend towards increased product complexity, how it has made developing profitable products more difficult, and how Product Lifecycle Management solutions can help.
  Register

• Wednesday (11:00 AM, Eastern US) – Transforming PLM for the Economic Recovery - Jim Brown will present with Chip Perry of Kalypso on this Aras ACE Innovation Series webcast on how to leverage PLM to take advantage of the upturn in the manufacturing industries, including innovation to increase revenue, decrease product cost, and reduce product development cost.
  Register

• Thursday (2:00 PM, Eastern US) – Streamlining Product Documentation and Raising the Bar with 3D Communication - Jim Brown will present with Garth Coleman of Dassault Systemes on this IndustryWeek webinar on how to use 3D product communications to improve efficiency, time to market, quality, cost, and customer experience.
  Register

?
So that is a quick peek into some recent research I will be presenting, I hope you find it interesting and helps bring the research to life for you. Please feel free to look for more PLM-related webcasts (upcoming and archived) from Tech-Clarity.

I had the chance to talk with … Kalypso‘s managing partner Bill Poston and new Kalypso partner Andreas Lindenthal about the recent merger of their companies. PLM implementation experts are in high demand, with most many “big name” consulting firms carrying small teams. In this case, two smaller specialists in product innovation and PLM are coming together to make an even stronger team.

What do they Do?

Kalypso is an innovation consulting firm. They help companies set the right strategies, develop the right business processes, and implement the right software to improve their product innovation performance. Kalypso specialized in a number of aspects of innovation including:

• Business & Innovation Strategy
• Front End of Innovation
• Portfolio & Pipeline Management (PPM)
• Development & NPI (new product introduction)
• Value Management
• PLM Technology
• Leadership & Learning
• Intellectual Property Management

Metafore is an very experienced PLM implementation consulting firm. Both firms have rich backgrounds in management consulting, systems integration, and PLM.

Benefits of the Merger

What is the value of the combined team? As I mentioned earlier, PLM consultants are in high demand. More importantly, it is often difficult to find good business consulting in this area. The largest consulting firms typically provide a large breadth of services (strategy, process definition, implementation, development) but lack depth in PLM resources. The smaller firms often have very deep PLM systems skills (although frequently in a single vendor’s system) but lack a breadth of consulting services. Kalypso offered both depth and breadth, even before the acquisition. So although Kalypso is a “smaller” consulting firm, they already had one of the largest independent PLM teams in the industry. The addition of Metafore extends that advantage.

But the new, combined entity is not just a bigger version of Kalypso. Instead, Metafore adds deeper skills in Siemens PLM solutions (namely Teamcenter) as well as more experience with smaller vendors including Aras, Arena Solutions, and Omnify Software. This complements Kalypso’s traditional strength in Oracle (Agile), Dassault Systemes (Enovia / MatrixOne) and PTC (Windchill). The merger also gives Kalypso more programming power, including access to offshore developers.

Who do they Work With?

Kalypso works with manufacturers of all industries, and has done some interesting innovation work in the service industries as well. The first time I met Kalypso in fact, was due to their unique expertise in PLM for CPG (consumer packaged goods) and the food industry. The addition of Metafore’s team provides Kalypso with more breadth in industries such as automotive, A&D, and industrial manufacturing.

Implications for Manufacturers

For existing Kalypso or Metafore clients, the merger will mean access to extended resources and a more capable partner. For those looking for product innovation or PLM expertise, the combined offering provides a compelling alternative to the big consultants that may not have the deep skills you need, or the small firs that may not have the breadth of services (or the top-tier talent) that Kalypso offers.

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

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I am a paid member of Kalypso’s Board of Advisors. I don’t feel that I would have written the article in any different way if that weren’t the case, but I felt that disclosing this information was the proper thing to do.

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.

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

What do they Do?

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

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

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

What do they Offer?

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

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

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