Clarity on PLM

You have probably heard by now that Autodesk has announced that they are entering the PLM market with the announcement of Autodesk 360 Nexus. I had the opportunity to hear about this in a “behind the scenes” look a while back and attended Autodesk University this week to take in the launch. Autodesk put a lot of emphasis behind the announcement, with CEO Carl Bass bringing up his famous anti-PLM rap where he said the only companies with a PLM problem were Dassault (Sytemes), PTC, and UGS (now Siemens PLM). His message now is that “we did not want to do PLM until we could do it right” and that the time has come. So welcome to the PLM community Autodesk!

What’s the Big Deal? Who Cares?

Autodesk promised that “everything would change” in PLM when the announcement was made. You can read Evan Yares’ view on what has (or hasn’t) changed. I believe that Autodesk meant that everything changes because they offer PLM in the Cloud. It is a software as a service (SaaS) and will offer a different way to buy PLM. The other reason they say things will change is that, as Steve Bodnar says, the solution is “insanely configurable” so manufacturers will not need to change their existing business processes. Those are both very interesting and potential game changers. For more of my thoughts on those, see the questions section below.

Whether you believe that cloud and configurability will really change PLM, one fact it clear. Autodesk has one of the biggest engineering user bases on the planet, and this will change the PLM market. They are serious about PLM. Having another player with the size, user base, and ability to deliver that Autodesk has will have an impact on the market. Will it take away business from competitors? I am not sure how much of that will happen in the near term. But will it get more Autodesk customers started down the path with PLM (with a lower risk model and a vendor they already know)? You bet. Will there be responses by other vendors? Of course, and the response will be based on what kind of traction Nexus gets.

So What will they Offer?

First, the solution is not available yet. You can learn more from Autodesk’s official PLM press release. Second, I will tell you that the solution looks really good based on some limited views. The interface is clean and modern, there are some benefits from starting a design from the ground up for use on the cloud (and on different devices over time). Third, for some more details I don’t want to recreate what others have already posted, so for a nice overview (with screenshots and all!) take a look at Al Dean’s take on D3D. Note that viewing the AC/DC video at the end is entirely optional.

So with that backdrop, let me share my thoughts on Autodesk’s PLM entrance. They are taking a different approach. They believe PLM has been too difficult and too expensive (see Steve Bodnar’s PLM Non-Starter Picture) and believe that a cloud offering is the answer. Applications designed and built for the cloud are very different, although there are others (including their largest competitors) that are also figuring cloud out. Autodesk sees themselves more like Salesforce.com competing with PLM vendors that are more like Siebel.

Autodesk also believes that changing business processes is a big challenge for companies, and develop Nexus to be highly configurable. I believe this is a double-edged sword. On one hand a company that has well-defined processes can simply model their existing processes in Nexus’ workflow. That sounds great to me. The problem with a lot of companies is that they either don’t have processes, they have poor ones, or they have lots of them. The difficulty in standardizing on a process is an organizational change issue, not a software issue. In fact, from my experience too much flexibility can lead to some really hairy problems for vendors and customers alike. I am not going to get too far up on my soap box right now, but there is a lot more to be said here and I have some learning to do first. I have some follow up planned with Autodesk to understand how much Nexus is application and how much is infrastructure on which you can build a process. For now, let’s just say that Excel and SharePoint are highly configurable too – and what most companies end up with is a lot of non-integrated islands of information and process that don’t fit well together. Flexibility works well for those with very small companies or good information architects to oversee design. Wait, I thought I said I wasn’t getting up on my soapbox? OK, stepping off it now. I even delete another paragraph I wrote while I was up there.

Some Open Questions

The bottom line is that we all have a lot to learn about what Autodesk really delivering and how it will perform. The announcement will clearly have an impact, but also raises some interesting questions:

• Autodesk has a lot of architect and construction customers. The “AEC” industry (E for Engineering) is evolving to BIM (Building Information Modeling) – what are the positives and negatives of sharing ideas and capabilities between PLM and BIM users? It’s interesting to note that their link for lifecycle management solutions is the same but with two tabs – one for PLM and one for BIM. Of course their are other solutions in the suite than Nexus (Vault for one, which is the PDM solution), and those still appear differently. This is not a concern for me, in fact I think it opens up some interesting opportunities. It will be interesting to watch.
• Autodesk is known for shrink-wrapped tools, not enterprise applications. How will their business model and partner network adapt to this new paradigm? Clearly they will need some new partners with PLM expertise. These partners will also need to know how to implement enterprise change and not just tools.
• What will an integrated PDM system behind the firewall look like with a PLM system in the cloud? I think this opens up some interesting questions on its own. There are some advantages and disadvantages of this model, and it will be interesting to see how Vault evolves.
• Where is the support for software-driven (mechatronic) and systems-oriented products? Vault is primarily for mechanical designs, to my knowledge. Does an integrated (versus a single solution) PLM-PDM open up opportunities to add an application lifecycle management (ALM) tool to the suite to manage software development? Kinds of likes my model from Software and Systems Driven Innovation below. Hmmmmmmm.

This is the fun part, watching and wondering what comes next. From what I hear from Autodesk a big part of their plan is to watch how customers adopt the solution and use that to help guide direction and strategy. Autodesk realizes they are on a journey and that they (and their customers) have a lot to figure out. That recognition and a willingness to listen to customers gives me some comfort that Autodesk will be a real player in PLM. Time will tell.

So those are my thoughts. Agree? Disagree? Think I am just stating the obvious? Think I am an idiot? Let me know what you think. OK, but if you think I am an idiot please be gentle with your criticism. Stay tuned for more, the Autodesk PLM story is just beginning to unfold.

A quick peek into some research on … the priorities, plans, views, and economic outlooks of companies that use engineering software. The survey-based study, published last night by Cyon Research, paints a very interesting picture of how manufacturers plan to invest and leverage engineering software (and related hardware) in the near future. I have had the opportunity to review and comment on the report during its development, and one thing that continuously struck me is not just how useful the published insights on the future of engineering software are, but the richness and depth of the information that the Cyon team couldn’t fit into the report.

The Research

The research spanned companies that use CAD, PLM, CAE, and other technical software, and included responses from almost 600 people. The report breaks down into a number of major categories, including:

• Purchasing plans, policies, and priorities
• Hardware refresh rate
• Financial outlook
• How companies differentiate themselves
• Engineering software selection criteria
• Views and plans on new releases from major software vendors (Dassault, Autodesk, Siemens)

In addition there are some interesting portions on who controls the BOM (and age-old question) and some insight into the relationship between CAE application usage and other engineering software used. The report contains a tremendous amount of information, with a number of very interesting charts. Plan to spend some time reading it if you have the opportunity, there is a lot to dig into.

Key Takeaways

There is far too much for me to give justice to in this space, but I will try to point out some of the more interesting things I learned from the report:

• Some companies have cut spending on engineering software – 29% of respondents indicated that they cut spending in the first half of 2009, with further cuts expected but at a slowing pace (for example 19% in first half of 2010). Note that these are likely in addition to cuts made in earlier budgets, so the total number that have reduced budgets from 2008 levels is probably higher.

• Many companies are playing “wait and see” -  42% are “considering or about to cut” spending if their business conditions worsen. This is what Cyon calls the “overhang” of the cuts, which includes the potential for further reductions dependent on the general economic conditions.

• Companies are planning to pick up spending (when they can) – in the words of the report, “The bright spot here is the longer-term outlook, 2010 and 2011, for increased spending in the purchases of design, analysis, and data management software.”

• Companies still have an appetite for improved solutions – the report gives details on the planned adoption of new technologies (V6 from Dassault Systemes, Inventor Fusion from Autodesk, and Sychronous Technology from Siemens PLM). I can’t share specifics, but across the board there are plans to implement the new solutions, although more Autodesk users say it is “too early to tell” given the maturity of the solution at this point.

Implications for Manufacturers

There are some valuable insights for manufacturers in this report to compare their strategies with their peers and competitors. The report provides some interesting detail on specific industries and their behavior, particularly on how each industry reported they plan to compete (product quality was the most commonly targeted differentiator overall, but this varied widely by industry).

I think this report is potentially even more valuable for software vendors.  The research gives them insight into what is important to their customers, and how they are planning to spend their money. For software companies, this can provide them with invaluable input into where they should focus their efforts to best serve their customers, particularly at a time when many are considering reductions in spending.

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

I had the chance to talk with … Chris Randles and Blake Courter of SpaceClaim recently to better understand their role in the broader engineering software market. SpaceClaim hase certainly managed to shake things up, from their initial introduction to the market with direct modeling, their tongue in cheek Twitter plugin, and now their demonstration of the potential use of multitouch manipulation in 3D modeling. This is a company that is clearly set out to change the status quo, and has succeeded in doing so. Other than shaking things up, though, where is the unique value that SpaceClaim offers, and why do they believe there is room in a consolidating CAD market for a new entrant?

Some History and Perspective

Stop me if you have heard this one (or better yet, skip to the next section). SpaceClaim has definitely made an impact on the CAD market.  The company splashed onto the scene with a very different message than the major CAD players. They bashed the limitations that parametric modeling brings with it, and offered “direct modeling” as the next generation of 3D CAD modeling. While most will agree that parametric modeling provides significant benefits, they will also agree that it requires training and knowledge about how to model parametrically, and that existing models require an understanding of how the part was modeled in order to change it. And, in some cases, what appears to be a small change to the design may in fact be fundamental change to the steps in which the CAD model was created (known as the “history tree”) and require fundamental model changes.

Suffice it to say, there was a weakness in the armor of the major CAD vendors, and the weakness was tightly embedded in the strength of their parametric modeling capabilities. That gave SpaceClaim a very strong competitive opening to target. Two other companies, CoCreate and Kubotec, also had direct or “history free” modeling capabilities. But SpaceClaim was the first to really exploit the chink in the armor, primarily because they have very strong roots and credentials in the CAD industry. Founder Michael Payne for example was also a founder of PTC, one of the most successful CAD (and now PLM) vendors in the world and SolidWorks, the disruptive technology that brought 3D CAD to the desktop. So these new entrants came with pedigree, experience, and a differentiated message. The results? Whether the incumbant players viewed it as a competitive necessity, were already developing something in parallel, or just reacted to the interest generated by SpaceClaim, the big vendors have responded:

• PTC acquired CoCreate to offer a parallel solution to their flagship CAD offering Pro/Engineer, and since has announced direct modeling capabilities in Pro/E

• Siemens PLM introduced feature-based, history-free modeling called “synchronous technology“

• Dassault Systemes developed CATIA Live Shape with direct modeling as a part of their V6 solution

• Autodesk announced “Fusion Technology” which aims to incorporate the best of both parametric and direct modeling

What do they Offer? A Different Approach to Design

So why is this important? Other than shaking up the market (which they are pretty good at), they are offering a design paradigm with much lower barriers to entry, and much lower barriers to change. Will this replace parametric modeling? It’s not likely in my opinion. There are inherent advantages to both parametric and direct modeling, with parametric modeling offering less flexibility but more power to develop families of similar parts or parts designed for mass customization. What impresses me, though, is that SpaceClaim does not seem intent on just fighting a battle between the two modeling paradigms. Instead, SpaceClaim is focusing on where each should be used, and how direct modeling can open up new business opportunities.

In particular, SpaceClaim is trying to promote earlier 3D modeling by non-CAD-jockeys. They are focusing on the advantages available from early digital, 3D models to help companies validate their designs early in the product development process. Today, this isn’t as easy because engineers frequently have modern-day draftsmen that translate their designs into 3D models. This is not the formula for rapid design and iteration. SpaceClaim, then, is targeting industrial design, conceptual design, and modeling for simulation and analysis. The designers and engineers involved in these functions are not as well trained on CAD, and require solutions that are more efficient and require less upfront investment (in time, training, etc.). The large CAD vendors recognize this, of course, and are working to increase ease of use in addition to offering direct modeling capabilities. But clearly SpaceClaim has a window of opportunity and some real value to offer.

Implications for Manufacturers?

There is a phrase that I like, “Love me, hate me, but don’t ignore me.” I believe SpaceClaim lives that mantra. They have a place in the market, they are not satisfied with the status quo, and they are innovating. Manufacturers should take a look at SpaceClaim, and consider using them either as a main modeling solution if they don’t have an incumbent tool and don’t require parametrics, or more likely as a complementary solution to address more free-flowing design by non-CAD-jockeys.

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