Clarity on PLM

I had the chance to talk with … Dassault Systemes recently about acquiring process PLM vendor Enginuity PLM, see the announcement here. As soon as I saw my friend Dr. John Sottery‘s name on the webcast along with Enovia CEO Mich Tellier, I had a pretty good guess about what they were going to tell me. DS made an investment in taking their PLM solution for recipe-based industries like CPG, food & beverage, personal care and pharmaceutical to the next level. This move combines strength on strength, because Enovia and Enginuity PLM serve very different roles in the R&D and product development process.

What did they do Before the Acquisition?

CPG, recipes, and formulas are not new to Dassault Systemes. DS acquired MatrixOne in 2006, and the MatrixOne platform is now the architecture behind Enovia V6. MatrixOne enjoyed some significant success in the CPG industry, and include specification management capabilities that are running in a number of CPG companies, most notably P&G. As an interesting note, P&G is also an Enginuity customer so they have already been running both solutions. DS was already competitive in the CPG industry, and frankly didn’t have much to offer in the way of formulation or recipe design. This acquisition changes that.

Now what do they Offer?

When a big company like Dassault Systems buys a smaller company like Enginuity, there is typically instant synergy. That is true in this case because:

• Enginuity provides deep domain expertise to DS.
• DS provides scale and market access that Enginuity could not achieve.

That is a typical scenario that happens when a suite provider like DS buys a specialist like Enginuity. But the synergy here is even more pronounced because:

• Enovia brings specification management, collaboration, and other PLM capabilities.
• Enginuity brings R&D tools to the chemists, and was built to fit into a broader PLM environment.

As a bonus, other DS brands have a lot to offer to the CPG industry as well. This includes 3DVIA with their shopper solutions and CATIA and SolidWorks for packaging design. I believe this provides a pretty unique and compelling offer.

So Where Does Enginuity Fit in DS?

One of the interesting implications of the acquisition is considering what type of solution Enginuity really is. DS is adding Enginuity to the Enovia brand, which makes sense. I know Enginuity has been labeled a PLM system. But I have known Enginuity for years, and I will be the first to tell you that I believe Enginuity is much stronger as a design tool than a PLM system. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is more like “CATIA for chemists.” But that is good news, because Enovia already has the PLM capabilities and Enginuity fills the design gap. Not to mention that Enginuity adds compliance capabilities to help formulators develop products that not only match product performance specifications but also meet regulatory needs as well. Read more about how compliance puts a “hidden tax” on innovation in the process industries here, in fact I interviewed a number of Enginuity customers for this research.

Why is it important to look at Enginuity as a design tool? Partially because it makes it clear that it is a complementary solution, but more importantly because it opens up the possibility that they will build even more advanced tools for formulators . Enginuity already handles more complex design functions than any other formulation system I have seen. On the phone, Dr. Sottery mentioned simulation and predictive modeling as well. Those kinds of sophisticated design tools are more like a specialty design solution in CATIA than what PLM can already offer (collaboration, change management, IP protection, etc.). With the resources of DS, Enginuity has the opportunity to explore those potential capabilities more deeply.

The key that makes this acquisition a good move is that the Enginuity solution is built based on strong formulation knowledge, and helps chemists develop the recipe in the first place. That is the part that has been missing from the major PLM systems. PLM can manage the specs well enough, but provided little value to the innovators at the bench level. Enginuity changes that. So I agree with DS for including the offering in Enovia, but for clarification I think that it is much more of a design tool that now fits in well with the existing specification management / PLM capabilities already in Enovia (again, from MatrixOne). To me, this adds to the synergy that DS and Enginuity gain from being a part of the same business.

Implications for Manufacturers

Some of you may know I spent quite a bit of time working with software for the formula-based industries, so this is an area that is near and dear to my heart. I have long been a proponent that recipe-based manufacturing (processing, dare I say) requires different solutions than discrete PLM offers. This move by DS opens up the opportunity for those that produce from a recipe or formula to arm their chemists and formulators with tools they need to innovate along with the PLM solution to support the enterprise in bringing the product to market. This is what we had the vision for ten years ago when I was with Sequencia (sold a decade ago), and I am happy to see that the solution is available from a major PLM brand.

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

I had the chance to talk with … Dassault Systemes about their acquisition of MES provider Intercim. The acquisition of Intercim is a strategic move, and represents Dassault’s confirmation of the importance of linking engineering intent and manufacturing process planning to manufacturing operations (and vice versa).

What do they Do?

Dassault Systemes is one of the premier providers of PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) solutions. Dassault has a very broad suite ranging from CAD (Catia and Solidworks) and simulation (Simulia) all the way through technical communications (3DVia) and enterprise systems (Enovia PLM). In the past year or so they have also added search (Exalead) and social computing (SwYm). Dassault Systemes has been redefining the boundaries of PLM and pursuing a strategy to bring “lifelike experience” to digital representations of the world. For more of my thoughts on DS, please see Reflections on Dassault Systemes Business, Strategy, and Progress at DSCC. Perhaps one of the most important assets pertaining to this announcement is DS’ digital manufacturing solution (Delmia) for manufacturing process planning.

Intercim is an MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems) software company with emphasis on complex and highly regulated manufacturing companies. Intercim helps companies execute the plans from engineering in the plant. They also focus on tracking what they call “emergent processes” when execution deviates from the plan.  The goal is to manage non-conformance and exceptions in in the same platform as normal operations. They also handle plant operations such as scheduling, task management, and shop floor reporting. One of the differentiators that Intercim claims is “operations intelligence” which enables their customers to analyze manufacturing results to identify areas of concern or opportunities for improvement. For example,  a manufacturer may identify an operation that is running significantly differently than the digital process definition it is based on.

What do they Offer?

DS plans to offer a deeply integrated PLM-MES system. They describe an environment of “digital continuity” that delivers digitizing work instructions to the plant floor, but goes beyond to close the loop to provide feedback to Engineering on defects and other issues. Intercim will become a part of the Delmia brand within DS, giving DS an integrated digital manufacturing – MES solution.

The integration of PLM and MES has the potential to provide significant business value, as described in The Roles of ERP and PLM in Manufacturing – now with MES!  The post links to a report on PLM and MES called Tech-Clarity Insight: Integrating PLM and MES – Realizing the Digital Factory, which addresses:

• Integrating the product and production lifecycle
• Automating the integrated product and production lifecycle
• Closing the Loop between designs and products

Who do they Work with?

To be clear, this is not a new relationship. Dassault and Intercim have been working together for some time as partners. They have a number of joint customers already, and will continue to penetrate the highly regulated, complex manufacturing industries such as aerospace.

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

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.

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.

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!

A quick peek into some research on … how effectively managing engineering data can improve engineering efficiency. Beyond just efficiency, the study looks at how solutions that manage engineering data – whether you call them PLM, PDM, cPDM, EDM, or any other acronym – can play a critical role in helping manufacturers realize their business strategies.

The Research Findings

Past Tech-Clarity research, including Tech-Clarity Insight: Innovating Through an Economic Downturn and Tech-Clarity Insight: Engineering’s Role in Surviving a Down Economy, make it clear that manufacturers are facing difficult times. Although there are positive signs about the recovery, there are lingering impacts on today’s manufacturing business including:

• Companies have to innovate to capture their share of a smaller market (some say they have to increase market share just to stay still due to lower overall sales volume)
• They need to bring products to market faster in today’s competitive, global environment (even before the downturn)
• They are running lean (and recent studies including one from Aberdeen Group indicate that they plan to add resources back in slowly)

What does that mean? As the recently published report Tech-Clarity Insight: Managing Engineering Data – The Role of Product Data Management in Improving Engineering Efficiency says, “manufacturers need to be able to design and develop products extremely efficiently to get the most out of their engineering efforts.” Perhaps that’s always true, and somewhat obvious. But what can they do about it? The report reviews the experience of three manufacturers, including AMETEK (rotary and linear motion control products and electronic instruments), SchuF-Fetterolf (industrial valve company specializing in the design and manufacture of process critical valves), and Visa Lighting (manufacturer of performance decorative lighting). The research finds that managing engineering data has a positive impact on:

• Gaining control of product data
• Collaborating across sites and sharing information
• Automating (and streamlining) product-related processes
• Leveraging PDM beyond engineering data

In turn, these improvements drive business level results including increased engineering efficiency and faster time to market. Looking back at the challenges companies face in a tough economy, these are important benefits!

Implications for Manufacturers

The research indicates that solutions to manage engineering data drive important business benefits. Product Data Management (PDM) is an important discipline and software enabler in manufacturing companies today. Regardless of whether the PDM is a part of a larger Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) solution or a simpler solution that focuses only on the PDM aspects, it is a must for manufacturers today. Manufacturers that haven’t invested in these solutions have a choice to make. They can choose a PLM solution from vendors like Dassault Systemes, PTC, or Siemens PLM. They could choose to get PLM from an ERP vendor such as Oracle or SAP. Others will choose a more focused PDM solution. Which is right? It depends on the business strategy and what the company wants to accomplish – now and in the future.

PLM is expanding to cover a lot more than data management, as I discuss in What I Learned: PLM Please Take 3 Giant Steps Forward. For some companies that fits their strategy well. For others (including some interviewed for this paper) that seems like too much for them. Instead of investing in PLM and using a subset, they chose to work with a simpler solution. Solutions from companies like Arena Solutions or Synergis Software can offer a lighter weight solution for these companies to meet their PDM needs. To be fair, some of the large PLM vendors also offer a simpler solution (although that is too much to get into here). They may not have all of the capabilities that the larger PLM systems do, but if the business isn’t ready for PLM they can offer a long-term PDM solution or a stepping stone to get data in order on the path towards a more broad PLM strategy. Regardless of what path they choose, the study is further evidence that manufacturers are getting real value from PDM.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on the importance of managing engineering data well, 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 … is that product cost is not getting the attention it deserves in PLM. I was presenting on the future of PLM in a PLM-focused event last week in Helsinki. My topic was the future of PLM, and I based my discussion on the four dimensions of PLM expansion (recently updated past post). I got a great question from one of the participants. He wanted to know “why I hadn’t included cost in the future of PLM?“ My response? Good question!

Product Cost in PLM

Product Cost Management (PCM) in PLM is something that I used to bring up on a regular basis. Design for cost is an important initiatives. Particularly as companies are trying to remain lean in uncertain economic times, controlling cost is critical. Even in good times, designing products with optimal cost structures is hugely important to driving high profit margins. So why has this dropped off of my radar? Is the problem being addressed? Is the problem solved? No.

The problem still lingers, but I haven’t seen as many companies willing to try to address it. Perhaps this complicates the roles of ERP and PLM, and companies don’t want to deal with a hard decision on which system supports which part of the process. ERP and PLM both have the potential to help, and should be a part of the solution. But neither ERP nor PLM are ready to take on the PCM challenge fully.

• ERP
  • Has historic costs
  • Understands multi-currency, locations, volumes, other sourcing factors
  • Generally handles cost for the execution of procurement and manufacturing
• PLM
  • Has new parts
  • Understands product content early when costs are locked into designs
  • Generally handles product development decisions in the innovation lifecycle

So each system has some thing to offer. So why instead of addressing this properly with the right combination of ERP and PLM, do companies continue to use masses of disconnected spreadsheets to solve the problem? At least I can hope that they are managing the spreadsheets in PLM so it is readily available and can be reused. But that is only a partial solution. We need a better answer.

Challenges

ERP and PLM both bring value as seen above, but both fall short. Here are some of the issues:

• New purchased parts - ERP is not involved in the early parts of design, and doesn’t help with estimating costs of new parts. PLM (for the most part) doesn’t have a rich enough model for sourcing. I have seen “cost” as a single field too many times, without any concept that the cost will change based on volumes, locations, currencies, etc.
• Newly engineered parts – For brand new parts, there is not historic data to work from. Costs need to be developed based on product characteristics like materials and manufacturing complexity. Comparisons can help, but ERP typically doesn’t know enough to determine which parts are similar in their construction

Who will step up?

Are vendors ready for this? Agile has had a cost model for some time. Siemens partnered with ATK. Dassault Systemes invested in this area. PTC just announced that their InSight product analytics product will address cost. So there is hope. There are also specialty vendors like Akoya and aPriori that help engineers estimate cost based on product attributes. Why haven’t SAP PLM and Oracle (with Agile and ERP) done something about it?

More importantly, are manufacturers ready? Adidas CIO mentioned Design for Cost at a PLM user conference (PTCuser) yesterday. But I don’t hear it often enough. I haven’t seen the momentum that something as important to profitability as cost deserves.

Implications for Manufacturers

If manufacturers aren’t willing to integrate cost into their design processes (and PLM), they will be stuck with spreadsheets. And actually, the question was broader. The question also addressed other financials in addition to cost. For example, is PLM addressing product pricing? Product forecasting? While I think that it makes sense for PLM to address this, I have seen little activity in this area to this point. What a shame. What a great opportunity for someone to step up.

So that is my rant for today, I hope you found it interesting. Why did this fall off of my radar? Did it fall off of yours? Have you done something to address this? If you did let us know about it!

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.

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

Responses and Reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see it differently? Let us know what it looks like from your perspective.

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