Clarity on PLM

I had the chance to talk with … Tim Frost of Burner Systems International (BSI) about their adoption of Product Data Management (PDM) to improve engineering and new product development performance. Tim explained to me that one of the primary goals for their adoption of PLM was getting a handle on their product data. But BSI also wanted to expand collaboration outside of Engineering and improve their time to market. The case study, Tech-Clarity Business in Focus: Burner Systems International – Improving Collaboration with Product Data Management, describes BSI’s experience from recognizing the need for action due to increased complexity in their business all the way through today’s benefits and plans for the future.

What do they Do?

BSI is a supplier to the OEMs that manufacture gas appliances. Like most suppliers, they compete very aggressively with their competition. They compete based on innovation, but most importantly on agility. They need to be able to react quickly to customer needs and bring the right component to market. Due to increased competition, growth by acquisition, and globalization BSI faced a huge challenge. As Tim tells me “We ended up with plants all over the globe, and we had to integrate engineering functions and data.”

What did they Do?

Recognizing the increased complexity, BSI took action. “You can use folders and you might get away with it for a while, but with multiple revisions you can’t manage it,” Tim explains. The solution was to implement a Product Data Management (PDM) system.  Just as importantly, they wanted to improve collaboration across departments. Tim describes how they implemented a PLM system (which includes PDM) that can be used by engineers and non-engineers alike. We discussed how departments like Quality, Manufacturing, Purchasing, and Sales get involved in the product design and development process.

What are the Results?

The new PDM system has shrunk cycle times and helped them make fewer manufacturing errors. According to Tim, those errors can cost up to $100,000 each. BSI is pleased with the results. “We know that we are faster in developing new products, I would estimate 25% faster,” Tim says. “We know that we are better prepared for launching production due to better input and collaboration from Manufacturing, and we know that we are less likely to make bad parts due to out of date drawing revisions.” The project is a success, and BSI is looking to further their gains by continuing to go beyond PDM to a more full PLM solution, leveraging the infrastructure they have in place.

 Implications for Manufacturers

 Burner Systems is a great example of a smaller company that desperately needed to get product data under control. At the same time, they have managed to achieve even more strategic benefits through collaboration and improved time to market. PDM is often the first step in a broader PLM Program.

So that’s what I hear from BSI, I hope you found it useful. What do you think? What else should I have asked them? A summary of the report is available from the Tech-Clarity site, and the full report is available for free from Siemens PLM, the provider of the Teamcenter Express software that BSI uses (and the sponsor of the report). Please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … the use of social computing and “Web 2.0″ techniques to enhance product collaboration. The report, Issue in Focus: Product Collaboration 2.0 - Using Social Computing Techniques to Create Corporate Social Networks not only discusses how social media and Internet-based technologies can improve product collaboration in corporate social networks, but also how manufacturers’ use of social computing allows them to capture and leverage the interactions as a new source of corporate product knowledge.

The Research Findings

One of the key messages of the report is that companies are starting to embrace social computing and “Web 2.0” capabilities to take advantage of social media for business purposes, creating “corporate social networks.” It is important for many companies to make a clear distinction between personal use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, etc.) and “real work” using social computing. While many large companies have shut down access to social media sites, these same concepts offer the ability for engineers, product developers, marketers, manufacturing resources, sourcing, and others in the product innovation process to share and contribute.

There are two primary threads to the research:

• Improving Collaboration – As reported in my previous post and research Going Social with Product Development, capabilities like presence detection and interactive file sharing help make existing collaborative processes better. This is particularly important to replace the day-to-day “water cooler” conversations that have disappeared in today’s globally dispersed, virtual organizations and support processes such as concurrent engineering. For example, manufacturers can create a virtual “community space” to give team members a central location for information. This collaboration extends beyond Engineering as well, and helps product developers include downstream considerations from Manufacturing, Purchasing, Quality, Service, and other departments early in the design process.
• Capturing Product Knowledge – Another key finding of the research is that as manufacturers adopt social computing in PLM, they are developing a digital record of the product development process. Decisions, discussions, false starts, brainstorms, and other interactions can now be captured and stored electronically. Using PLM, they can also be associated to the product and the project to form a permanent record of the process. By integrating this social interaction with search capabilities in PLM (see Unlock My Product Data! Business Intelligence in PLM), the potential to turn collaboration into a corporate asset is tremendous. Beyond capturing internal knowledge, corporate social networks can also be used to collaborate with suppliers and customers to gain better insights into the “voice of the customer,” capture requirements, and generate new product ideas - developing new knowledge and intellectual property (IP).

Implications for Manufacturers

There are significant business benefits to be unlocked by applying social computing techniques to product development. Manufacturers have an opportunity to improve collaboration inside and outside of the enterprise by leveraging these new techniques. After all, social computing is about sharing content within a community. Isn’t that what collaboration is all about? Sharing and getting feedback? And while the thought of using Facebook or Twitter to share your intellectual property may not sound that appealing (as we discussed in Flogging the Facebook for Product Development Horse), the same concepts are being applied to (and integrated with) PLM.  I believe that these capabilities will be a big part of product innovation moving forward, and that companies that get started sooner will have a big advantage over their peers. This is a new and exciting frontier, and we all need to explore and learn so we can tap the new potential ahead of the competition.

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

And as always, please feel free to review more free research and white papers about PLM and other enterprise software for manufacturers from Tech-Clarity.

A quick peek into some research on … how manufacturers are taking advantage of social computing and “Web 2.0″ technologies to raise the bar on product development performance in my new report Tech-Clarity Insight: Going Social with Product Development: Improving Product Development Performance with Social Computing. The paper discusses the intersection of social computing and new product development (NPD) processes and tools. I have posted frequently about the intersection of social computing and PLM and product innovation, and this research provides some examples on how these strategies are starting to play out for manufacturers like Microsoft (think PC hardware and game consoles, not Windows) and Pitney Bowes.
The Research Findings

The paper discusses uses of social computing from the basics of collaboration to the adoption of more innovative business models. Most companies will start with more conservative extensions to existing processes like design collaboration. In these cases, incorporating tools like instant messaging into the product development workflow can help streamline interactions. Capabilities like presence detection and interactive file sharing help make existing collaborative processes better. For many companies, these capabilities are readily available and require little change to underlying business processes.

Other forms of communication, such as blogs and wikis, offer a combination of better communication and knowledge management. These online discussion tools change the product dialogue from a one-way push of information to a two-way, interactive, dynamic, electronic conversation to help people better share information and ideas. Beyond better communication, the simple fact that the conversations are happening centrally and in electronic format turns product-related discussions and decision-making into a searchable knowledge asset.

Social computing can also be used to extend collaboration and information sharing to broader communities. This allows product developers to collaborate with the people they know, but also extend their search to find others in the corporate network that have valuable knowledge and expertise that previously would have gone untapped. By connecting people around product and project context, companies enable “social discovery” which fundamentally changes the available talent and expertise available to a project.

Beyond the corporate community, companies can also develop new product intellectual property (IP) from social computing. By extending the online community to customers and the market, new opportunities to gather “voice of the customer” and test ideas emerge. While these concepts require more change to the business and the way it operates, they also offer an even greater potential return by leveraging larger communities.

Implications for Manufacturers
The implications break down into two categories. The first implications are about the applicability and importance of social computing in product development. You have probably heard me talk about this before, and this report helps confirm and expand my thoughts on the subject. There is clearly something of value happening with the intersection of this exciting and popular new way of communicating and the business of developing profitable products.

The second set of implications fall into the category of practical advice and lessons learned to take advantage of this new opportunity. The opportunities are available, but the most important thing is that manufacturers don’t discount the applicability of social computing concepts based on their personal experience with Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, or any other social networking sites. Manufacturers have to see through the use of these communication techniques for “fun” and see the significant business potential. This potential will likely never come from the public social networking sites, but instead by incorporating these “Web 2.0″ concepts into existing infrastructure and product development solutions. This is the most practical method to both achieve the value, but also ensure that product data and intellectual property (IP) is protected and that the solutions are used in the right context – to improve products and projects that drive corporate profitability.

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

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

What I learned this week …came from a side conversation during some research I am working on in the innovation systems ecosystem. I was discussing the importance of different solutions in the space with this major electronic manufacturer, and he started to get very passionate when he turned the conversation to Web 2.0 and how it can improve innovation. With the work I have been doing on social computing in PLM, we ended up having a fascinating conversation about the potentials. It’s always nice when you see confirmation of a trend from an unexpected source.

My Thoughts on Connecting People to Improve Innovation

During our conversation, I kept coming back to a thought that I posted in one of my earlier discussions about the potential for social computing to revolutionalize PLM. I was trying to communicate the fact that social networking in PLM is more than just enhancing collaboration as we know it. I made the following observations:

• Collaboration – Working and sharing ideas with people you already know
• Social Networking in PLM – Discovering new people and ideas that can further your product innovation and engineering efforts
• In short, the difference is about discovery

I tried to make the point that “discovery” in product innovation, product development, and engineering was the new value that can be tapped into with social computing. Social computing techniques will also enhance existing collaboration techniques, but this is the really exciting stuff to me. How can we leverage our “social” business networks to tap into the vast amount of knowledge available to us?

His Thoughts on Connecting People to Improve Innovation

Without sharing any of my views, our conversation turned from the ability to search for product knowledge to the need to search for the people associated with the product knowledge. It was a totally unexpected shift in the conversation, because it is not directly in line with the particular research I was discussing with him. Of course that is what made the conversation so valuable. He told a story that was very similar to my past experience. One of the key values in finding engineering or innovation knowledge is to then find the people associated with it. In turn, the value may come from the discovery of the deliverables (designs, research, products, etc.) but also from collaborating with the creator of the deliverables. After all, there is knowledge in the deliverables. But there is probably even more knowledge available from the man or woman that created the knowledge!

So given recent conversations about putting the people in PLM, people centric PLM, and focusing on people vs. process in PLM in the PLM blogosphere, I thought it was great to see the intersection of PLM with social computing and innovation. Very exciting. I hope you found it interesting. Who knew? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it. And I look forward to sharing more of the conversation as that research makes its way to the public eye.

What I learned this week … is based on a post in Vuuch Voice. The post, People Centric PLM – A New PLM Age Is Born, really made me think. I don’t know where Chris Williams got the picture, but I don’t think it looks like him at all. Well, maybe a little. After recovering from the shock of the picture, I really started thinking about whether social computing in PLM requires a reinvention of PLM, or whether we are talking about augmenting the capabilities that PLM already provides?

People Centric PLM

In Chris’ post, he discusses the approaches that PTC and Dassault Systemes are taking to support the more people-centric, creative process of design. One of the comments also includes Siemens PLM in the mix. The post points out efforts by the major PLM companies (ProductPoint and Blue Kiwi) that are intended to provide social computing capabilities in PLM. But the real question is whether these solutions replace PLM, or extend it.

There has been a lot of discussion recently, including in Oleg’s blog, on the need for easier to use PLM. Chris has blogged about this as well. But are we realistically thinking that simplifying PLM and adding social computing capabilities are one in the same? I wonder if there is some concern that the PLM community will throw the baby out with the bath water?

My Thoughts?

What do I think? I am glad you asked. I think we need to look at two important, distinct needs for the future of PLM:

• PLM needs to be simpler to use
• PLM need to incorporate social computing

Will both happen at the same time? Not likely. Should they? Probably not. The underlying technology in PLM (managing files, document control and generation, revisioning, search capabilities, etc.) are incredibly valuable and important. They could be easier to use, no doubt, but they are fundamentally important. But making PLM easier to use should not require a rewrite. The underlying logic and infrastructure are a huge asset. What is needed is the ability to access it using more tailored, simple, task-based interfaces. This is what things like SOA arthitecture and composite applications are designed for.

For social computing (see more of my thoughts in Is Social Product Development Viable without PLM, We are not Going to Build an Airplane on Facebook, and related posts) there are some really unique opportunities for companies to improve product development performance. Some are very tied to the underlying information and processes in PLM (such as improving design collaboration and knowledge management with messaging, wikis, blogs, presence detection, etc.) and need to be tightly integrated – if not a part of – PLM. There are also some are new processes like crowdsourcing for ideas and innovation challenges that – at least in the near term – are likely to be developed independently from PLM. At some point, these solutions may become a part of the PLM footprint as well, but they don’t have the same need for underlying data and integration to process as adding social computing to core PLM activities. So Chris is absolutely right when he says vendors are taking different people-centric directions. And they probably should. But they could also take both if they choose.

Implications for Manufacturers

Look for simpler PLM solutions, and look for social computing capabilities to help improve product innovation, product development, and engineering. But don’t expect them at the same time. Consider offerings from your PLM vendor that add social computing into the fabric of their solution, but don’t shy away from experimenting with integrated plugins and standalone solutions in the right scenario. And yes, continue to push for simpler PLM. But let’s not ignore the high value of what we have already developed over the last decade or more.

So that’s what I think about adding people to PLM, I hope you found it interesting. Who knew this would be such an interesting topic? I didn’t, if you did let us know about it.

What I learned this week … came from a Youtube video by direct modeling (3D CAD) company SpaceClaim. The video is cool from the music to the product, but after their hilarious April Fool’s joke – how serious is this really? Let’s put aside that question – and the question of how ready this technology may be – until I have a chance to talk with them a bit. In the meantime, what I want to discuss is “why we would care if multitouch came to CAD?”

My Initial Thoughts
What the video shows (OK, please just go watch it, it is worth the two-plus minutes it takes and I could never do it justice) is the use of multitouch capabilities in a CAD modeling environment. It is glitzy and fun, but I think packs some real promise. Why would multitouch be appealing? Other than the fact that it looks cool (and hopefully comes with the techno-music built in) – where would we find business value in such an interface? I have written about multitouch in 3D before and its potential to increase engineering efficiency and increase collaboration at some point, but never really considered it as a real modeling interface (other than when watching a movie) in the near term.

So is There Business Value?

I am sure SpaceClaim has their views on this, and I look forward to hearing them. To me, there are two potential avenues to value that spring to mind:

• More natural interface – people work with their hands. Hands are amazing tools that we start to use when we are very young. Our brains are geared for hand-eye coordination. Many of the computer interfaces developed for modeling are electronic analogies for physical manipulations. After all, where did “cut and paste” came from? Particularly in direct modeling, terms like “push” and “pull” are used, which are much more the words we would have used as we grew up modeling in Playdough, clay, sand, or whatever was available to us. Perhaps we can be more creative when we are closer to our naturally learned modeling techniques? Of course, with the power of technology to extend what our hands can do with rapid calculations and visualization capabilities, we should be much more creative than with a physical material (with all of its inherent constraints). For example, I am much better at “cut and paste” online than with my unaided hands because of capabilities like “snap to grid” and a general lack of dexterity.
• More accessible user interface (maybe) – I was just at Six Flags New Jersey with my son yesterday, and they had a multitouch desktop with photographs on it. It’s tucked away in a little lab behind a bunch of rides, but they have a cool hands-on lab. Kids were walking up to this desktop, sliding the pictures around, and with very little instruction resizing and re-ordering them. Why? It fits into their (physical) paradigm of the world. As much as my kids can learn to manipulate an Xbox controller with levers and buttones to simulate a football game, isn’t it easier to pick up a Wii controller with a motion-oriented interface? So perhaps these capabilities will (eventually) open up 3D modeling to a much broader audience? For example, wouldn’t it be great for a non-engineer to be able to show the CAD expert the change they want instead of describe it and watch the engineer interpret the words and try to model it?

Note: I have posted on the Wii contoller as a user interface as well, which combine physical motion with buttons. My guess is that we are not looking at an either-or between these different interfaces, but multiple interfaces (and hybrid interfaces).

Implications for Manufacturers?

The implications for manufacturers are twofold:

• Keep an eye on this technology - let’s find out how real (and how ready) this is. This is something that is worth keeping an eye on. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see this as the primary interface any time soon. There are a lot of complex interactions that are likely hard to make gestures for. Likewise, making them intuitive may not be entirely …well… intuitive. This will take some time for the value to be recognized.
• Keep en eye on this company - let’s face it, these guys are creative and out to change the game. Is this the most compelling next step for 3D modeling software? I am not convinced yet. But, a company with the ability to spot an opportunity like this and start walking down the path is a company worth learning from. And I have to note that the video says it will be available “this Fall,”  and that it appears from the video and the credits that this might go beyond modeling to analysis and simulation. Interesting…

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think. And let’s all wait to hear what SpaceClaim has in mind in regards to making this deliverable product.

I had a chance to talk with… Hardeep Gulati at Oracle about the recent Agile PLM 9.3 product release. Product analytics has been, and still is for the most part, a gap in the PLM market.  So considering Oracle’s acquisitions of Hyperion and Agile in recent years, it’s not a surprise that the Oracle 9.3 PLM release is focused squarely on this area. The challenge is making this product intelligence consumable to each of the different roles along the value chain – engineering and design, manufacturing and supply chain, marketing and sales. Make the information easy to access and relevant, or you’ll have a nice analytics tool that no one uses. Oracle realizes this and has also focused the release on enhancing an already good (based on conversations over the past year with Agile users) user experience by adding “productivity tools” – for example drag and drop, inline editing, and more personalization. The company will focus their next release on leveraging their portal technology for a common user interface – a critical component of their strategy.

What do they offer?
More specifically, the product lifecycle analytics solution Oracle is offering is focused on risk management - i.e. product quality, obsolete parts, supplier’s financial liability, new sourcing options, design process, demand volatility, and where exposure is in a product portfolio. Future focus will be on deeper customer analytics during the front end of innovation, and manufacturing intelligence.

In addition to analytics, Oracle has focused on integration. We’ve heard about AIA (Application Integration Architecture) as the platform for weaving together the numerous assets Oracle has acquired, including Agile. This “backbone” (or, FUSION middleware) is an open platform that can integrate the heterogeneous environments (other PDMs, best of breeds) that are so prevalent in product development. Oracle even offers a “PIP” (process integration pack) for integrating Agile to SAP. With the 9.3 backbone you can create product development-specific services (e.g. product cost management), and have scripting available to support integration to components and segments of the product lifecycle.

How Does it Fit into the Ecosystem?
With the lack of rich product analytics in the PLM world, this is a welcome announcement. If you are looking for better product performance intelligence at all stages of the product lifecycle, Oracle’s new release warrants a look. This announcement should accelerate competitive efforts in this arena – IBM with Cognos (and it’s recently announced closer partnership with Siemens PLM), Siemens PLM, PTC, and SAP (who is working to integrate the acquired Business Objects capabilities into its product intelligence platform). I expect the next 12 months to bring rapid improvement from these and other PLM vendors, from better product portfolio analysis to product, manufacturing and supply chain analytics.

So that’s what I hear from Oracle. What do you think? What else should I have asked them?

I had a chance to talk with…the Dassault Systemes team about their recent V6 product release.  They reinforced their key messages during the conversation: SOA based on a single data model, powered by ENOVIA, leveraging 3D as a media.  They also continue to speak of PLM 2.0, referring to the maturation of PLM from an engineering workgroup application to a value chain wide new product development and launch platform. I agree with this assertion – PLM has evolved in recent years to include the front end of innovation, product portfolio management, and direct materials sourcing. I always believed these were aspects of the PLM footprint, but organizations still approached each aspect of the product lifecycle in a siloed fashion.  Now with this release, these tenets are accessible to the small to mid-sized businesses (SMB) as well.

What does V6 Offer?

The key focus of the V6R2010 (V6) announcement is SMB (V6 PLM Express), the current incarnation of the SMARTEAM/CATIA bundled offering. Much like Siemens PLM and PTC, Dassault saw great success in the mid-market in 2008 so hope to build on that momentum with this release.  Basically, the goal is to open up the V6 platform – and “key PLM 2.0 values” – to the mid-market.  So what are these values?  There are the six points they espouse:

• Global collaborative innovation
• 3D lifelike experience across the value chain
• One platform enabling the federation of knowledge
• Online creation and collaboration – product authoring and collaboration over the web
• Ready to use PLM processes, by role and industry
• Lower cost of ownership and operations support

Much like other PLM vendors (e.g. Oracle), Dassault has focused their current release on enhancing the user experience.  V6 provides design (CATIA LiveShape), collaboration (3DVia composer pro), and simulation (SIMULIA DesignSight) to non-technical users, and offers role-based consumption of product information. The company has also further developed their systems engineering capability, by enabling building of component libraries to enhance reuse, and enhancing modeling capabilities.  There are five role-specific interfaces within v6: shape design, mechanical engineering, equipment engineering, machine engineering, and project team members (i.e. non-engineers).  Appropriate capabilities are presented in the user interface depending on role: industrial designers may have access to modeling and basic simulation, mechanical engineers have access to detailed design functions, and manufacturing process planning, and other members of the product launch team could have collaboration, sourcing and review capabilities.  New product development information (whether from other CAD tools, or enterprise applications) is presented through 3DLive, Dassault’s web collaboration application.

How Does V6 fit into the PLM Ecosystem?

The six values Dassault speaks of are pretty much the same messages all large PLM providers have with their most recent product releases, although Dassault does place more emphasis on leveraging 3D across PLM processes and roles.  The challenge with this is convincing manufacturers who just want to arm their engineers with PDM and CAD that there is indeed value in sharing 3D visuals with marketing, field service, and suppliers (as Dassault says, “3D for all”, or in Autodesk‘s words, “democratizing 3D”).  I absolutely think there is value in this, whether for a large or small company. Marketing would be able to create more compelling promotions, leading to increased revenue. Field service would be able to respond to product quality issues more effectively, leading to happier, more loyal customers. Suppliers would be able to collaborate on new product designs and provide the most effective parts or materials.

What Else Does V6 Offer?

Two other key areas which Dassault has made a conscious effort to address are making the transition of V4 and V5 customers to V6 easier (with multiple “transition scenarios” from version co-existence to complete migration), and ensuring V6 is open so existing investments in tools and other enterprise applications can be leveraged, and data can be federated across the value chain. These two points alone will be key to accelerating acceptance of V6.

So that’s what I hear from Dassault. What do you think?

What I learned this week … came from two recent conversations with manufacturers about their use of social computing to support product innovation, product development, and engineering. I am exploring how companies are using these technologies to improve design and product development collaboration, but also trying to uncover ways they are going beyond collaboration on a specific product or design. Two of my recent conversations touched on the use of wikis and blogs to present information. To be more accurate, these manufacturers are using wikis and blogs to both collect and communicate engineering and product knowledge. Pretty interesting stuff, I think.

Overview

The two manufacturers I discussed were actually striving towards different goals. One company was developing product documentation in a wiki format. The idea is to allow actual users of the product to insert their perspectives into the manuals. The direction of the documentation was not free-form, but directed by a framework and outline provided centrally.  By allowing the network of individuals related to the product (including customers) to provide content, the company hopes to gain better, more hands-on product documentation with a lower investment. The documentation is not free by any means, but has the potential to be more rich in content. Note that this documentation approach would likely not be appropriate for many documentation needs, particularly where product safety and liability are concerns.

The second company is using wikis and blogs to provide internal standards and other information to engineers. Their goal is to allow selected experts to contribute their knowledge for others to access and utilize. They are providing a way for the experts in their company to share their expertise with others in an easy-to-access, more permanent format than word of mouth or written guidelines. The lower threshold of effort required to add information to a wiki, the ability to share their knowledge, and the opportunity to be seen as an expert should all motivate experienced individuals to contribute. In this company’s case, however, they are not leaving the development of their content up to the generosity of their employees. They are providing financial incentives to senior experts to motivate them to share knowledge.

Relevant Past Discussion and Perspective

This is particularly interesting to me based on a few past experiences. First, I have been focusing on the use of social computing in PLM for product development collaboration, and the use of social computing in PLM beyond collaboration. In addition, however, I did some research on how electronic engineering reference information helps drive improve engineering productivity.

Does Social Computing Yield Trusted Information?

The latter research really strikes home in relation to the importance of “trusted information.” The companies interviewed for that report were very clear in their need to not just access some information, but to access the right information – and information they could trust to be accurate.

How are these companies ensuring the information is accurate?

• Author’s Credibility - the first company is relying on the credibility of the person providing the information. First, they aren’t offering the ability to input information to anybody, only selected individuals. Second, they are making it clear who posted which piece of information so that the person consuming the information knows where it came from. In this case, it is a relatively small community so the reputation of each contributor is well known.

• Moderators’ Knowledge - the second company is also screening those that can participate, and limiting the input to a number of chosen “experts” in the field. Adding to this, they are appointing experienced moderators to review and validate submissions. In this way, the information has two levels of credibility – the credibility of a chosen author and the stamp of approval from an experienced moderator.

Implications for Manufacturers?

I see three primary takeaways for manufacturers:

1. Wikis and blogs offer a compelling way to capture and share engineering and product knowledge, both internally and externally
2. Those using wikis and blogs in this way need to have a strategy to validate information posted, and the individuals posting it
3. Manufacturers must clearly communicate the level of validation and integrity of each piece of information offered, or risk people making decisions on unsubstantiated data

While this is a compelling way to gather and share knowledge, it should not be applied blindly. Without providing an understanding of how the knowledge should be used (and how much it should be trusted) companies could find themselves making decisions much more rapidly – but on bad information. Using wikis and blogs can be a good strategy, but one that requires a well-conceived plan to address validity of information.

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think.

What I learned this week … is based on responses and my own reflection stemming from my post
Is Social Networking in PLM Just More Collaboration? from last week. In that post I talked about how social networking capabilities can add more than just collaboration by extending into “discovery.” But what I want to circle back on now is that yes, social networking capabilities can also play a significant role in collaboration. In my enthusiasm with what could happen for manufacturers that are willing to stretch the boundaries of their current business, I may have made some pretty big assumptions in regards to people understanding what is most likely their first step in embracing these technologies in product innovation and engineering - which is enhancing collaboration in design and product development. So in this post, I want to step back and comment on the near at hand values of social computing and PLM, and potentially put the horse back before the cart for many. Will social networking make your product development team as happy as this picture? Probably not, but it might just help make your products more profitable.

Why Social Networking Extends Traditional Collaboration
I started my last post with “Why Social Networking Complements Traditional Collaboration.” I believe that there  is significant new business value that can be unlocked by using social networking to find new people to collaborate with. But I don’t want to ignore some of the benefits that can be achieved by extending collaboration with existing contacts. To explore this, let me share some scenarios:

A Non-Engineering Scenario – The Product Manager Checking on Their Launch Date
Let’s start outside of Engineering and look at a common scenario. A product manager is planning a product launch and needs to get an idea on when a packaging issue will be resolved and get a better sense of the impact recent activity has had on the delivery of a prototype to be used at a tradeshow. In a small company, he may yell over the cubicle or catch up with the people he needs at lunch. But that is not the case for most manufacturers today. In this case, the packaging is being done by a contractor and the project is being managed from a different corporate facility. Let’s look at each part of this separately:

Is my Packaging Issue Resolved? Is it Going to Be? Really?
If I was the product manager, I would want to know if I need to step in and intervene or let things go their course. Step one should be to check existing information. If the company has an integrated PLM system, it should be relatively easy to look at the latest packaging design. If their PLM goes beyond the basics, it should be possible to look at the project plan. But looking up what is on record is probably only a part of what the product manager needs in this scenario. Like you or me, the product manager will want to know what is “really” going
on. They will want to get the “inside story” by checking into progress and having conversations with those involved – enter social networking.

Associated with the packaging design, how valuable would it be to see a threaded discussion that shows the
history or the issue and those involved? A quick look into that would say a lot more than a one word status on a
workflow step. Even if the company was doing really well in PLM and had project issues documented and linked to the project, seeing the interactions is much more insightful. Are they really close to a resolution, or is that just wishful thinking? This is where formal documentation lets us all down, but the more informal communication of social networking gives us more valuable information. It helps replicate the “let me walk down the hall and see what is really going on” in a global, distributed product development environment.

When Will the Prototype be Done?
OK, now what about the impact on the date for the prototype? Maybe there were some unexpected design changes, or a supplier was late with a design. Of course the formal project timeline will be up to date, right? And again with a well put together PLM system maybe we have documented issues and ready access to the latest status reports. But what I would  want, and I assume you would to, is to talk to somebody about it. Wouldn’t it be nice if we insert presence detection and instant communication? Looking at the project plan, I would love to be able to “Right-Click” the person assigned to the task and send them a quick instant message, or ring their mobile phone, to
get an unfiltered view of the status. Or if that is not possible (due to policy or security) I would like to be able to
instantly speak with the project manager about status. But I wouldn’t want to look them up in a corporate directory and get their administrative assistant, I want to connect. Now. Instantly. I am looking at their name on the status report, I want to “right click” them instead of leaving a voice-mail and waiting to hear back.

Implications for Manufacturers?
I hope the scenario approach helps paint a picture about how the social nature of product development can extend the value that PLM provides. PLM took collaboration to a certain level by offering centralized information. But what is missing? The people side of things. This example shows how social networking
integrated with the PLM information (product, project, suppliers, etc.) helps. I will share a more engineering-centric view next time, that will explore why tighter integration to the engineering information itself is important.

So that is what I learned this week, I hope you found it interesting. Let me know what you think.