Clarity on PLM

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?

What I learned this week … came after long reflection on my predictions for product innovation in 2010. As you may have noticed from the sparse number of posts in December, I must have been doing a lot of reflecting! I decided to look back at my 2008 research at Aberdeen Group called “The Product Innovation Agenda 2010″ to see whether or not my predictions came true, and bust those that didn’t. I hope you find it interesting. For a look at my take on this last year, please see the post What I Learned: Product Innovation and Engineering “2009 Style.”

Disclaimer on my Lack of a Crystal Ball

First, I want to say that my predictions were not based on a crystal ball or some supposed deep insight into the world of product innovation. As a researcher, I always find it better to ask the people who know the answer instead of guessing. In this case, I surveyed manufacturers about their plans for improving product innovation, product development, and engineering between 2008 and 2010. Then, I compared what the leading companies were doing – and planning to do – differently than average and poorer performing companies.

Predictions and Outcomes

Based on the prior research, here are my thoughts on where we stand as a manufacturing and engineering community against our plans for 2010:

Overall, I feel pretty good about how well the study predicted where companies would focus their efforts. Clearly companies made adjustments based on the economy, but the fact that PLM can help both the top-line and bottom-line was a big benefit.

What Did I Miss?

I missed the impact that social computing would have on product innovation processes. The report touched on open innovation and standardizing innovation processes, but I didn’t ask the right questions to see how the explosion of social networking would impact product innovation. I am not sure that if I asked the right questions that manufacturers would have been able to predict the boom in these technologies and their applicability to product development. I hope that I have made up for my miss by reporting on the trend in posts such as Going Social with Product Development, Social Computing Drives Innovation, Social Innovation in Simple Terms, and Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Study Good Sign for Social Computing in PLM. This is a space to watch in 2010 and companies plan on how to compete in 2011 and beyond.

Implications for Manufacturers

Last year I saw companies adopt a “survive and thrive” approach to innovation due to the down economy. The economic downturn forced companies to run lean and many had to downsize. But many companies I studied were keeping at least a subset of their resources on future innovation to be ready for the return of the market. I noticed that the long-term strategies for PLM were the same, but companies were shifting PLM strategies to short-term tactics to reduce cost and get the most out of existing resources.

Predictions for 2011 and Beyond

This year:

• I expect to see continued emphasis on innovation and PLM.
• I believe many companies will be picking up where they left off with PLM strategies, but maintaining their focus on keeping costs in check.
• PLM will continue to expand, as discussed in What I Learned: PLM, Please Take 3 Giant Steps Forward, and will play a large role in helping companies improve product innovation, product development, and engineering on a broad scale.
• Social computing will have a profound impact on product innovation, and 2010 will see many initiatives exploring the value that the intersection of web 2.0 technologies and process have with PLM.

So those are my thoughts on the past, present and future. I hope you found it interesting. What does 2010 and beyond look like to you?

What I learned this week … is a thought sparked by a post in the Daily PLM Think Tank on Engineering and Manufacturing Data Management back in 1992. The post isn’t from 1992, but Oleg was re-reading some books from that time and commented on some issues that the manufacturing industry is still struggling with after 17 years of progress. I know there are strong proponents of the single bill of material (BOM) concept, but I wonder if we will every really get there and whether we haven’t made some really good progress managing bills of material with different perspectives. And maybe, just maybe, there is an easier way.

The Single Bill

Oleg’s post doesn’t go into detail, but the first issue he shares is “Multiple Bills of Material” and follows with “Relations between Design, Engineering BOM and Routing.” The truth is that Engineering works from a different BOM than Manufacturing does. And, as the post also points out there are also separate “Maintenance and Repair Bill of Materials.” There are strong arguments for a single BOM that supports different views for different people (engineers vs. manufacturing vs. service, etc.). And there are very strong proponents (to the tune of religious zealot levels of belief). So for this discussion, let’s take as a given that it would be great to have a single BOM.

Single BOM – Feasible or Folly?

Now that we are all friends, it is time to ask a practical set of questions:

• Is a single BOM really feasible?
• How hard of a transition would it be to support processes for a single BOM?
• And (most importantly) how much is it worth?

Let’s face it. Engineers care about things that manufacturers don’t. And manufacturing engineers care about things that design engineers don’t. Manufacturing really requires a lot more information than engineering, they require an integrated view of both the materials and procedures required to product a product – a Bill of Process (BOP). See more thoughts on the BOP in Research Rap: Enhancing Productivity and Reducing Cost with MPM and the Digital Factory and the related research report. Can the BOP be a different view of the same BOM? Yes, potentially. But that asks a lot of the people, the process, and the data model.

One other consideration is the difference between what an ERP needs to execute the business of manufacturing as compared to what engineers need. ERP BOMs frequently include information used for costing and consumable items used in manufacturing. They also summarize a detailed set of components into a single part number for procured items or sub-assemblies based on how they are physically present in the manufacturing environment. Even ERP routings are much simpler than the detailed BOP, primarily focusing on the level of detail required to track cost and plan production. See Research Rap: Complementary Roles of ERP and PLM in Innovation and look for some new Tech-Clarity research coming soon on the integrated roles of ERP and PLM. Again, can these be different views of the same data? Of course. But as we have proven by history, people aren’t moving in that direction with any great haste because it is simply hard to pull off.

We haven’t even touched on service, spare parts, preventitive maintenance, or discussed tracking “as built” or “as serviced” BOMs. But let’s just agree for the sake of argument that they are not easy to integrate.

Cost-Benefit of the Single BOM

OK, you are probably thinking “why didn’t he answer the questions he asked in the beginning of this section? All we have discussed so far is that it is difficult. So let’s conclude that there is a cost associated with moving to a single BOM approach. And for now, let’s ignore what it would take to transition from the “as is” to the “to be” state.

Now that we have agreed there is challenge and cost associated with a single BOM approach, the most logical question is to ask how much value the single BOM provides. Clearly, a single BOM would contribute to fewer errors and disconnects between all of the different people in involved in a product over the product lifecycle. It would go a long way towards the “single version of the truth” in regards to products that we all profess. But here is where I want to throw out a different question. Instead of comparing the cost-benefit of the single BOM approach, let’s look back at history and see if an alternate approach has been evolving as PLM has matured.

Single BOM or Associated BOMs?

Manufacturers and PLM providers have not ignored this topic. I would argue that a lot of progress has been made. How? Companies have spent a lot of time and effort making logical connections between different BOMs, and developing tools to help develop and synchronize different BOMs. For example, PLM, MPM, and Digital Manufacturing software helps companies translate an engineering BOM into a manufacturing BOM and then further into a BOP. In fact, they have gone further upstream to match conceptual BOMs and requirement structures downstream to BOMs. Maybe you would call these “workarounds” to the real answer of a single BOM. But I would propose a different view based on history and my observations. Perhaps engineers have done what we do best – addressed the problem in the most practical way as opposed to the most elegant way to solve a problem.

So those are my thoughts, I hope you found them interesting. I will admit that I am not a zealot in one direction or the other, and recognize those that are passionate about a single BOM. I am happy to be educated on different views, but I think the question needs to be asked. Are we trying to achieve our goals by taking the long, hard road when an easier path might suffice? Or am I all wet?

A quick peek into some research on … the use of digital prototyping techniques and technologies to design (and redesign) efficient manufacturing plants. Most of the times I discuss “digital prototyping” it regards products. But the same concepts apply when using digital prototyping in the plant – namely using digital models to increase design efficiency and get designs right the first time. Today I am happy to share my new report with you, Digital Prototyping in the Plant: Improving Manufacturing Agility with the Digital Factory.

Why Digital Prototyping Now?

Clearly, the economy has been tough on manufacturers across the globe. Today, manufacturers are facing a series of demands to survive today and thrive during the economic recovery. I researched engineering’s role in a survive and thrive strategy from a product perspective earlier this year, noting that Engineering can make short-term impacts on both the top and bottom lines in the near term while innovating to prepare for the future. But what impact does the economic downturn have on manufacturing and plant engineers? In the plant right now, you are probably facing:

• The need to cut cost
• The demand to improve efficiency
• The requirement to adjust to plant or line consolidations, volume/mix changes, and potentially new products
• Lean resources to accomplish all of the above

What Did the Research Reveal?

Tech-Clarity interviewed leading manufacturers including Android, Robert Bosch, and General Motors on their use of digital prototyping. By leveraging 3D models in their plants, these manufacturers are improving their ability to design and reuse optimal tooling at a detail level as well as optimizing workstations, lines, and plants at a macro level. They are leveraging the tools to validate and optimize changes in a virtual environment before commiting to physical changes. In return, they are able to “find hundreds of issues … early in the process” and ensure smooth production in the plant when modifications are brought online.

One interesting finding was the use of 3D laser scanning to create 3D models of older plants that were likely designed using 2D drawings. In these scenarios, 3D for prototypes is created “using 3D laser scanning (LIDAR) to capture 3D point clouds of existing brownfield sites and pulling those into our CAD models.” This helps to reduce the barrier to entry for digital prototyping in existing plants.

Another interesting finding was the use of digital prototypes to collaborate with tooling suppliers, who are frequently geographically dispersed. With lower travel budgets and short time frames, electronic collaboration can bridge the gap. As one participant said, “This enables engineers collaborating deeply with external design suppliers to see the changes much faster and with less errors than in the 2D world.” Of course digital prototypes also help enable collaboration with design engineers in a concurrent engineering approach to get new products ramped up quickly.

Implications for Manufacturers

Cost saving opportunities are available, and change is inevitable. Manufacturers today have the opportunity to increase their agility and improve efficiency through digital prototyping technology. Please read the report for more recommendations. You may also be interested in a prior report, Leveraging the Digital Factory: Enhancing Productivity from Operator to Enterprise on the use of digital prototyping and Manufacturing Process Management (MPM) and Digital Manufacturing solutions to reduce cost, speed time to market, and improve product quality.

So that was a quick peek into some recent research on digital prototyping in the plant, 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.